Patent: Tamron 85mm f/1.4 VC USD

[StudentOfLight]

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.

Another pearl of wisdom to save in my memory bank.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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

The problem with shooting anything with an 85mm at 1/15th sec...is subject movement. Even a micro movement in your target will produce a blurred or slightly fuzzy subject image. An IS unit can't freeze a subject still.

 

[chrysoberyl]

I can't blame Tamron for jumping on this opportunity, but what I really would like to see is a Tamron prime - 400 or 500mm.

 

[Luds34]

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.

Do you think part of the issue with the new Tamron's is the above average focus range? If I recall the MFD on these new lenses allowed one to get into that pseudo macro range. I'm thinking on an 85, they'd go with a conservative focal range to cut down on long throws and maybe only let the lens focus at 3 or 4 feet. Of course adding a bit of macro isn't a bad thing if one includes a focus limiter.

I tend to agree on your 2nd statement as well. I haven't been exposed to as many lens as you have but I have owned a few Tamrons and Sigmas and have gotten my hands on others. My experience has just been that Tamron has figured out the "secret sauce" (or darn close) of the Canon focus system. However, Sigma might be slowly getting there, or at least getting better.

Of course, the real question is, how soon will we see this lens?

 

[StudentOfLight]

I'd estimate that when shooting on 50+ MP full frame that the rule might be more like 1/(3x FL) in order to have a good margin of safety for camera shake.
1/(85x3) ≈ 1/250s.

For static people shots I find 1/60s is a limit for subject movement although I'd prefer to photograph them at 1/100s - 1/125s to avoid EFCC excessive focus confirmation chimping.

Given these parameters (250/125 = 1 stop, 250/60 ≈ 2 stops) I would say that an 85mm with IS has some merit even for live subjects given the future high megapixel bodies which know are already in the pipeline.

 

[wallstreetoneil]

can't wait for this lens

I have converted over to 5DSRs for weddings. My entire lens strategy is based on IS lenses - the only exception is the new 35L II because it is tack sharp at F1.4 and extremely useable at that aperture and my handheld tests show I can get repeated tack sharp images at 1/125th even at the most extreme magnifications.

The old argument reiterated above that IS doesn't matter and 1/FL is fine because it worked in the film days is not a completely honest argument. Why? As mentioned, people generally didn't order enlargements as big as they do today and more importantly, the vast majority, if not nearly all lens back then, couldn't nearly resolve what the state of the art lens can resolve today - so while in theory, film has extremely high resolution abilities - the lenses did not so it is a false argument (most often).

With a 5DSR, if you had a 85 1.4 IS lens, you could ditch the 70-200 F2.8 IS and just crop if you needed more FL - but you would gain 2 stops all the time - that is an enormous advantage in potential performance. I can't see Canon offering this lens as it could affect sales of their 70-200 F2.8 IS lenses - for Tamron on the other hand, this can be a homerun lens for them.

I know there are new 50L, 85L and 135L lenses coming with the 35L II treatment - and they will be excellent - but if you have a high megapixel camera and want to sell large prints, you would be better to use them on the Sony A7Rii (that is what I do with the 85L II and 135L) - I do not use these lenses handheld on the 5DSR - but I will buy that Tamron the day it goes on sale.

 

[Luds34]

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

The problem with shooting anything with an 85mm at 1/15th sec...is subject movement. Even a micro movement in your target will produce a blurred or slightly fuzzy subject image. An IS unit can't freeze a subject still.

Which of course comes down to how/what you shoot. For some IS/VC is probably much more useful. For me personally, I'm in your camp. At 100mm or less I really don't have a need for it and serves very little benefit. In fact, it probably makes the lens more expensive, larger/heavier, and is just one more thing to fail. I typically have Av mode, etc min shutter set at 1/60 or so anyway. Sometimes 1/125. Even my 70-200 doesn't have IS and is not a problem. While it would be nice on certain occasions, even in those cases it's probably only saving me a stop at best.

 

[StudentOfLight]

Do you think part of the issue with the new Tamron's is the above average focus range? If I recall the MFD on these new lenses allowed one to get into that pseudo macro range. I'm thinking on an 85, they'd go with a conservative focal range to cut down on long throws and maybe only let the lens focus at 3 or 4 feet. Of course adding a bit of macro isn't a bad thing if one includes a focus limiter.

My thoughts precisely:

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.

 

[Luds34]

Do you think part of the issue with the new Tamron's is the above average focus range? If I recall the MFD on these new lenses allowed one to get into that pseudo macro range. I'm thinking on an 85, they'd go with a conservative focal range to cut down on long throws and maybe only let the lens focus at 3 or 4 feet. Of course adding a bit of macro isn't a bad thing if one includes a focus limiter.

My thoughts precisely:

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.

Haha, sorry I missed your comment. Yes we are on the exact same page. The trusty Canon 85 f/1.8 has a MFD of like 3 feet. Combine that with (relatively) small glass and it's a win-win in the focus department.

To your point about being pleasantly surprised by the f/1.4, Same here. Especially being their 35/45 were f/1.8. Like others here, if this lens is what we are thinking/hoping (especially with the faster focus) and comes in at a reasonable price like in that $600-$800 range, this will end up in my bag.

 

[scyrene]

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.

Well I have to say my experience was different when I had that lens. 1/80sec was generally not fast enough, partly because the lens is so heavy and compact, making handholding a little harder than many other midrange lenses. In general, I see no disadvantage to adding IS to any lens - I've seen no evidence it diminishes optical performance (as some pro-all manual folk have claimed, for AF too), the weight gain is not much, especially if you knock 1/3-1/2 a stop off the maximum aperture, and the extra cost need not be all that much either (plenty of cheaper lenses have it). And you can always turn it off

I'm quite surprised you shoot portraits at 1/50. I'm no portrait photographer by any means, but I've found humans require a faster speed than that to ensure a reasonable number of shots without motion blur. But each to their own.

 

[PhotoCat]

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

The problem with shooting anything with an 85mm at 1/15th sec...is subject movement. Even a micro movement in your target will produce a blurred or slightly fuzzy subject image. An IS unit can't freeze a subject still.

Which of course comes down to how/what you shoot. For some IS/VC is probably much more useful. For me personally, I'm in your camp. At 100mm or less I really don't have a need for it and serves very little benefit. In fact, it probably makes the lens more expensive, larger/heavier, and is just one more thing to fail. I typically have Av mode, etc min shutter set at 1/60 or so anyway. Sometimes 1/125. Even my 70-200 doesn't have IS and is not a problem. While it would be nice on certain occasions, even in those cases it's probably only saving me a stop at best.

I used to think that one needs 1/60s or faster to shoot sharp still portraits to avoid motion blur, until my friend opened up my eyes with the humble Canon 24-105 F4 IS. Well, his 1/15S was by mistake LOL! I was surprised that he had a lot of sharp keepers at 1/15S for still portraits. That really got me thinking about IS! Mistakes aren't always bad as it encourages out-of-the-box thinking! I do have to admit I personally don't own any full frame IS lenses so my experience with shooting portraits at 1/15S is limited.
Been waiting for Canon 85 f2.0 IS but don't know when it is coming. Looks like Tamron is more experienced in IS technology as demonstrated by the first 24-70 f2.8 VC. So I hope the Tammy 85 VC focusing is good.

 

[Nininini]

I'd estimate that when shooting on 50+ MP full frame that the rule might be more like 1/(3x FL) in order to have a good margin of safety for camera shake.

I use 1/3*FL for my 70D too.

I'll take some grain over a blurry picture.

People often say that you should shoot at 1/FL.

But

1. If you look at your own hands, you will see that the amount your hand shakes is not always the same, you can get unlucky easily every couple of shots. Just because 1/FL works once, doesn't mean it will work again.

2. This rule is an old rule that predates high resolution cameras.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

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.

Do you think part of the issue with the new Tamron's is the above average focus range? If I recall the MFD on these new lenses allowed one to get into that pseudo macro range. I'm thinking on an 85, they'd go with a conservative focal range to cut down on long throws and maybe only let the lens focus at 3 or 4 feet. Of course adding a bit of macro isn't a bad thing if one includes a focus limiter.

I tend to agree on your 2nd statement as well. I haven't been exposed to as many lens as you have but I have owned a few Tamrons and Sigmas and have gotten my hands on others. My experience has just been that Tamron has figured out the "secret sauce" (or darn close) of the Canon focus system. However, Sigma might be slowly getting there, or at least getting better.

Of course, the real question is, how soon will we see this lens?

I absolutely do. I think Tamron would have been to include a focus limiter switch in the design of the 35/45 lenses, but I'm also sure that the idea was discussed and then rejected due to some engineering challenge. They have more focus throw between minimum focus and 2 feet than the Sigma ART lenses have for the whole focal range - that is going to affect focus speed. I frankly feel like Sigma cheated a bit on the focus throw to help achieve faster speed, but they may have sacrificed a little focus accuracy in the process (and I'm not just talking manual focus).

 

[PhotoCat]

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

The problem with shooting anything with an 85mm at 1/15th sec...is subject movement. Even a micro movement in your target will produce a blurred or slightly fuzzy subject image. An IS unit can't freeze a subject still.

Which of course comes down to how/what you shoot. For some IS/VC is probably much more useful. For me personally, I'm in your camp. At 100mm or less I really don't have a need for it and serves very little benefit. In fact, it probably makes the lens more expensive, larger/heavier, and is just one more thing to fail. I typically have Av mode, etc min shutter set at 1/60 or so anyway. Sometimes 1/125. Even my 70-200 doesn't have IS and is not a problem. While it would be nice on certain occasions, even in those cases it's probably only saving me a stop at best.

I used to think that one needs 1/60s or faster to shoot sharp still portraits to avoid motion blur, until my friend opened up my eyes with the humble Canon 24-105 F4 IS. Well, his 1/15S was by mistake LOL! I was surprised that he had a lot of sharp keepers at 1/15S for still portraits. That really got me thinking about IS! Mistakes aren't always bad as it encourages out-of-the-box thinking! I do have to admit I personally don't own any full frame IS lenses so my experience with shooting portraits at 1/15S is limited.
Been waiting for Canon 85 f2.0 IS but don't know when it is coming. Looks like Tamron is more experienced in IS technology as demonstrated by the first 24-70 f2.8 VC. So I hope the Tammy 85 VC focusing is good.

An interesting read: "shutter speed for portrait work"

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2654802

 

[dlee13]

Does anyone think an announcement of this lens would be possible at CP+ (I don't know much about patents)?

I was going to buy the Sigma 85mm f1.4 in 1 week but with CP+ right around the corner, I'm tempted to wait and see if anything is announced.

 

[AshtonNekolah]

I kicked canon glass out years ago and now all my zooms are Tamron and primes Sigma outside of the 90mm VC macro.

I wouldn't hesitate for a 85 1.4 VC even over an ART 85. Sign me up for that lens.... omg.

I kicked sigma out after using there 50mm, I will take a Tamron over it simple cause Tamron is like canon galss only without a red ring and a L with a L price. This would be a good glass.