Patent: Tamron 85mm f/1.4 VC USD

mackguyver said:
This is certainly exciting news given what I've heard about their newest VC lenses. I am still waiting for a 135 f/2 IS someday, so any step in that direction from any vendor is great. Besides, that would be a 135 VC on a crop body :)
A 135mm F/1.4 in terms of light, but a 135mm F/2 (more or less) IS in terms of depth of field! Very interesting!
 
Upvote 0
TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
I do think the 85 VC needs to focus a little faster than the 45 VC. There are a few moments in fast paced action (indoors) that I'm wishing for faster AF.

This is the first thing I thought on seeing this news also Dustin. The 45 I don't mind so much because I won't really use that lens for anything fast, but in order to displace my 85/1.8 this fella is going to have to be a heck of a lot faster to focus than the 45 is.
 
Upvote 0
May 15, 2014
918
0
drob said:
mclaren777 said:
I want Canon to make an 85mm f/1.4 with BR optics more than I can express.

Its new 35mm lens is outstanding and I want Canon to keep developing this technology!

The problem with Canon doing it is that they'll charge you an arm, a leg, maybe a kidney...I'm not a pro so anything over 1K for a prime lens is outside my budget. If I can get a quality prime with VC for <$1K, especially at f/1.4, I'd be golden. I'm really surprised that Sigma hasn't come forth with their 85mm offering yet. It will be interesting to see what comes out of this rumor.

I'm in the same boat. $1k is about my limit for a prime lens.
 
Upvote 0
May 15, 2014
918
0
tr573 said:
TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
I do think the 85 VC needs to focus a little faster than the 45 VC. There are a few moments in fast paced action (indoors) that I'm wishing for faster AF.

This is the first thing I thought on seeing this news also Dustin. The 45 I don't mind so much because I won't really use that lens for anything fast, but in order to displace my 85/1.8 this fella is going to have to be a heck of a lot faster to focus than the 45 is.

That's a good point.

I really love the 85mm f/1.8 but it can be a tiny bit soft wide open, has fairly bad CA, just loses that punch a little. With what we're seeing in the latest primes I can't help but think a new 85mm would just have better sharpness, micro contrast etc.

However, what I love about the current 85 is how fast/accurate it focuses. I use this lens a lot outside for tracking kids, activities, etc. and wouldn't want to give up that ability.
 
Upvote 0
Luds34 said:
tr573 said:
TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
I do think the 85 VC needs to focus a little faster than the 45 VC. There are a few moments in fast paced action (indoors) that I'm wishing for faster AF.

This is the first thing I thought on seeing this news also Dustin. The 45 I don't mind so much because I won't really use that lens for anything fast, but in order to displace my 85/1.8 this fella is going to have to be a heck of a lot faster to focus than the 45 is.

That's a good point.

I really love the 85mm f/1.8 but it can be a tiny bit soft wide open, has fairly bad CA, just loses that punch a little. With what we're seeing in the latest primes I can't help but think a new 85mm would just have better sharpness, micro contrast etc.

However, what I love about the current 85 is how fast/accurate it focuses. I use this lens a lot outside for tracking kids, activities, etc. and wouldn't want to give up that ability.

Exactly. The 35 VC is fine, but the 45 VC, while accurate to focus (now), can frustratingly make you wait sometimes for it to be ready to fire.

Still, I am personally more excited about an 85 VC than a Sigma 85 ART, because my experience says that I CAN get a Tamron that reliably focuses for me, but the only Sigma I was absolutely confident in its focusing was the 150-600 SPORT.
 
Upvote 0
I wish Canon made an IS version of their small 85 and 100mm f/2.0.

That tamron isn't going to be much smaller than my zoom. The tamron would need to have perfect AF, the DOF is going to be razor thin.

I understand why Tamron their AF system isn't that great now, Phase detect isn't that simple to implement, the camera needs lens-specific information, when the phase detect sensor isn't in phase, it need to be able to tell the lens, exactly how far it should move its elements. I believe most Tamron and Sigma lenses often can only use contrast detect, that's why focus often bounces back and forth like a point and shoot.

The camera shares information between the phase detect system and the chip inside the lens. Tamron has to reverse engineer what the camera is saying. But each time Canon updates their chips, or makes a new camera, it says something that the chip in the Tamron lens might not understand. This is why Tamron lenses that focus on one camera, often stop focusing at all on newer cameras.
 
Upvote 0

StudentOfLight

I'm on a life-long journey of self-discovery
Nov 2, 2013
1,442
5
41
Cape Town
I'm pleasantly surprised by f/1.4. I was expecting a 1.8 VC. Hopefully Tamron opts for a non-close focus optical design with faster focus and maybe focus limit switch on top of that. My 100mm macro and 135L are lighting fast in terms of focus and I'd want a 85 that can match that performance.

W.R.T. Tamron SP series...
This will likely be my 5th Tamron SP purchase. So far I've only had one issue which was with the 24-70/2.8 VC which was covered by the massive warranty. My most recent SP purchase is the 35/1.8 VC. I'm quite happy with my 35/1.8 although I can notice a slight lag with AF compared to my 35L. I'm much happier with the Tamron wide open performance and lower CA to forgive the slight AF speed loss. I don't use the 35VC for indoor sports or any tracking type photography so it's no real issue for me.

An 85/1.4 by comparison would be nice for indoor sports shots in tighter venues, where the 135/2 or 200mm f/2 would be too long. However then one would expect AF performance to be fast and precise more like the 70-200mm VC than the recent close-focus 35/45mm VC designs.

I'd pay $800-$1,000 if the AF is fast and reliable and IQ improves slightly on the 35VC.
 
Upvote 0
StudentOfLight said:
I'm pleasantly surprised by f/1.4. I was expecting a 1.8 VC.

I would have preferred 1.8

Now the AF is going to have to be perfect to justify the extra weight and price, and I doubt it will be.

You can still get away with a tiny bit of front or back focus on a 1.8, but with 1.4 at 85mm, lol no, AF will need to be perfect.
 
Upvote 0
tr573 said:
in order to displace my 85/1.8 this fella is going to have to be a heck of a lot faster to focus than the 45 is.

The thing is also, the 85mm f/1.8, and the 100mm f/2.0, are also some of the fastest focusing lenses canon has. The focusing motor in those lenses is super fast.

But, the tamron has VC. I hope Canon makes IS versions of their lenses.
 
Upvote 0
douglaurent said:
This is what I've been waiting for for years. Stabilized primes are the way to go. As good as the new fast primes of the past years have been from Sigma etc, they are all not the perfect solution for eternity because of missing stabilization.

Of course it's also highly welcome for video. And if you look at a Batis 85/1.8 that has stabilization coming from a Sony body and from inside the lens, each huge bulky DSLR 85mm without any stabilization looks like a less useful tool from an old era.

As good as the Otus 85 and equally good Milvus 85 are, in the end I tend to use them only for tripod landscape work. No stabilization and no autofocus is very limiting, and the handheld the advantages of the great optics are eliminated fast because of that.

I also don't think anybody needs to wait for a Sigma Art 85. The recent Sigma 85/1.4 beats all Canon and Nikon 85mm lenses and seemed to be the first lens that was designed by the new engineers behind the Art label, that Sigma just started a bit later than the release of their 85mm. I am sure Sigma will come out with an update of that lens soon, but more because the buyers need the signal "now it's Art branded", and not because the quality step from the old lens model will be as huge as in the case of their older 20, 35, 50 etc models which really had designs that where not done by the engineers behind Art.

I really don't understand the requirement of fascination of Image Stabilized prime lenses. I regularly use my 85mm f1.2 IIL in very low light conditions (shooting some bizarre weddings in crypts by candle light) and wide open...I don't need the IS baggage. A lens like this requires a shutter speed of 1/85th sec and the ultra bright aperture provides this, which is why it's referred to as a "fast lens". I've owned and used mine in a professional portrait context and I've never once thought that an IS unit would help or improve this lens. I've even used it for landscapes...awesome IQ...but a 70-200 is a lot easier to use. It's a hand held portrait lens, so use it as such. It's so bright...on a sunny day I have to use ND filters to use it wide open...THAT'S BRIGHT.

The only prime I have which I've thought that an IS would be of occasional use is the 135mm f2L. That's partly due to the longer focal length requiring a higher shutter speed of 125th / sec and the dimmer max aperture of f2. So I loose 2/3rds of a stop due to the higher shutter speed requirement and 1 1/3 stop aperture difference between the two lenses...that's a 2 stop difference and that's big. To render the same exposure under the same light, I would need to shoot the 135L at 4 times the iso. So if my 85IIL uses an iso of say 800 iso (nice and low noise), then my 135L would offer me a relatively noisy 3200 iso.
My 35mm f1.4 L really doesn't need an IS unit either. Although this lens is 1/3 stop dimmer than my 85IIL, it gains more light because it can be hand held to 1/30th...although I prefer to use it at 1/50th so that my brides look sharp.
 
Upvote 0
GMCPhotographics said:
I really don't understand the requirement of fascination of Image Stabilized prime lenses.

It's pretty simiple for me, often times I am shooting pictures and I see something and I want to take video.

It's rare that you actually have time to switch to an IS lens, by then the moment is usually over.

Video on a 24mm works fine without IS. But shooting video with an 85 or 100mm without IS, looks like you're filming an earthquake.

(and no I'm not spending a whole day stabilizing video in post in software and sacrificing large borders around the video, it's 2016, not the 90s)
 
Upvote 0
GMCPhotographics said:
I really don't understand the requirement of fascination of Image Stabilized prime lenses. I regularly use my...

Another reason I can think of is noise. What ISO were u shooting at 1/85 & f1.2?
With a slower shutter at 1/15S, I can drop the ISO by more than 2 stops and get a much cleaner image.
Higher dynamic range too :)
Well, many times f1.4 doesn't give me the DOF I need, not to mention f1.2, so I have to increase ISO agn.

Another time is for motion blur special effect while keeping other things sharp at 1/8S.
(like a spinning bride lol)
Maybe u r super steady but I can't hand hold that for an 85mm.

So IS with prime is definitely useful for me. Having said that,
I would be happy with just f2.0 for an 85. f1.4 is really awesome, if the Tammy is focusing well ;)
 
Upvote 0
Feb 8, 2013
1,843
0
JohanCruyff said:
mackguyver said:
This is certainly exciting news given what I've heard about their newest VC lenses. I am still waiting for a 135 f/2 IS someday, so any step in that direction from any vendor is great. Besides, that would be a 135 VC on a crop body :)
A 135mm F/1.4 in terms of light, but a 135mm F/2 (more or less) IS in terms of depth of field! Very interesting!

Which only sort of levels the playing field with full frame, nothing more.
85f1.4 on crop is effectively the same as 135f2 on full frame in every way, use the same ISO and shutter speed on each body, but give the crop sensor an extra stop in aperture, and you have virtually the same image...
Except in this case the 135f2 lens is probably cheaper to make and gives better IQ.
 
Upvote 0
Let's have a vote to see who prefers IS or not. I'll bet 98% of photogs would rather have it, especially on anything 85mm+

These days with the 135 / 2 I'm shooting at least 1/500 to get crisp shots. The 1/FL rule was for back in the days when film resolution was fairly forgiving, unlike current 50+MP images. Also, when shooting a lot of frames (something we didn't do with film), fatigue and bad posture sets in.

Today I was doing some macro work with the 135 and an ext. tube. Zooming in 5x or 10x in live view was a shaky blurry mess. And if anyone mentions tripod, yes, I bring one everywhere and never use it.
 
Upvote 0
Jan 29, 2011
10,673
6,120
ranplett said:
The 1/FL rule was for back in the days when film resolution was fairly forgiving, unlike current 50+MP images. Also, when shooting a lot of frames (something we didn't do with film), fatigue and bad posture sets in.

Today I was doing some macro work with the 135 and an ext. tube. Zooming in 5x or 10x in live view was a shaky blurry mess. And if anyone mentions tripod, yes, I bring one everywhere and never use it.

No the 1/FL rule has nothing to do with MP numbers, it was arrived at by the measure of visual acuity and a 'standard' enlargement size/viewing distance combination, which was an 8"x10" print viewed at 12", or twice the size from twice the distance etc etc. What has changed is that we now enlarge things much more so movement is more visible, fullscreen on a 27" monitor viewed from a few inches is now standard, people taking pictures of birds think nothing of 100% enlargement ratios with an equivalent to 36" prints viewed from inches away.

Use of an extension tube greatly magnifies the enlargement ratio so 1/FL was never the "rule" when tubes were used.
 
Upvote 0