Tamron says they are ready for Canon and Nikon mirrorless

[Richard CR]

DPreview did an interview with Tamron executives at the CP+ show last month.</p>
<p>They asked the following question about, of course, Sony, and got back a rather intriguing answer.</p>
<h3>How important is the Sony customer base to you now?</h3>
<p>Very important. Everybody is going to mirrorless.<strong><em> Canon and Nikon will launch full-frame mirrorless cameras, probably in the near future. When this happens, we can easily make Canon and Nikon versions of our [native] E-mount lenses. The same design could work for [multiple mirrorless mounts].</em></strong></p>
<p>Unpacking this a bit more Tamron is assuming here that not only is Canon and Nikon going mirrorless, they are going mirrorless with a short registration distance camera mount.</p>
<p>As we have already posted today, it certainly looks like Canon is testing future mirrorless cameras, the big question left that just about everyone wants to know – what mount will it be? Will Canon disrupt the industry once again and come out with with a new mount? Will they use the EF-M mount or will they use the fact that they have over 130 million good reasons to keep with the EF mount and stay with the status quo.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[neuroanatomist]

Of course, if Canon goes with the current EF mount, Tamron is ready for that too…

 

[Don Haines]

When this happens, we can easily make Canon and Nikon versions of our [native] E-mount lenses.

Circular logic at it's best.

Tamron's Sony mount lenses are based on their Canon/Nikon mount lenses, most of which are listed as "future".

To make a Canon mount lens based on a Sony mount lens (not released yet), which is based on a Canon mount lens, is saying that they can make a Canon based lens based on a Canon mount lens....

 

[Khalai]

To make a Canon mount lens based on a Sony mount lens (not released yet), which is based on a Canon mount lens, is saying that they can make a Canon based lens based on a Canon mount lens....

It's called lensception :-D

 

[ahsanford]

When this happens, we can easily make Canon and Nikon versions of our [native] E-mount lenses.

Circular logic at it's best.

Tamron's Sony mount lenses are based on their Canon/Nikon mount lenses, most of which are listed as "future".

To make a Canon mount lens based on a Sony mount lens (not released yet), which is based on a Canon mount lens, is saying that they can make a Canon based lens based on a Canon mount lens....

All you need is the XYT4-X Pro Optical Modulator, which appears to be [pulls out catalog, puts on glasses]...

...a hollow lens tube to get back the flange distance of the original SLR mount. ;D

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Also, zero mention of a mount conversion service like Sigma is offering.

Yeah, they're ready for CaNikon mirrorless -- to sell all new lenses.

- A

 

[Richard CR]

Tamron's Sony mount lenses are based on their Canon/Nikon mount lenses, most of which are listed as "future".

To make a Canon mount lens based on a Sony mount lens (not released yet), which is based on a Canon mount lens, is saying that they can make a Canon based lens based on a Canon mount lens....

Not their new 28-75 e-mount lens. Which is what they are talking about.

 

[unfocused]

Tamron's Sony mount lenses are based on their Canon/Nikon mount lenses, most of which are listed as "future".

To make a Canon mount lens based on a Sony mount lens (not released yet), which is based on a Canon mount lens, is saying that they can make a Canon based lens based on a Canon mount lens....

Not their new 28-75 e-mount lens. Which is what they are talking about.

You beat me to it. I looked up the Canon/Nikon 28-75 and it is definitely different looking than the Sony mount.

On the other hand, I doubt that Tamron has any inside knowledge about what mount Canon or Nikon may use. This just puts them in position to offer the lens in a new mount, should that be necessary.

 

[hendrik-sg]

To convert a EF lens to a hypothetical shorter flange mirrorless lens should be no problem, just make it a bit longer. so my benefit as a customer would be to have camera which is 20 mm shorter belwow the hot shoe (which is useless), and 3 lenses which are 20mm longer in my bag. WOW

It's not about to have an benefit, it needs just the attribute "mirrorless" as it seems. Great marketing work, to sell a cheaper produced camera without movable parts for a premium to hyperventilating experts who feel themselves innovative, just discovering their new style. It's so cool to pay more for getting less, which is exactly what "premium" means

 

[Quackator]

Canon is likely not informing Tamron about their plans in advance.

So.... Tamron *thinks* they are ready.

They poke a stick into the fog, that's all.

 

[fussy III]

It is not Canon informing Tamron. Obviously it works the other way round: Tamron is informing Canon that they are willing to aid a system that would otherwise be growing too slowly to compete with Sony.

At the same time (and I am speculating now), Tamron might be saying here that for the near future, their native E-mount designs will keep in consideration that any Nikon or Canon FF-mirrorless might have a slightly wider flange if they ever see the light of day. I think this strategical explanation to Tamron's statement likely as I remember Sigma once stating that designing lenses for the FF-E-mount is difficult because of its very tight flange. Perhaps the 28-75/2.8 for E-mount already has a rear element that is further away from the sensor than it is the case in original Sony's lens-designs. Tamron sent this lens out to the market not only because it is great on the A7ns but as an information to Nikon and Canon.

Should Nikon and Canon fail at releasing a proper FF-mirrorless, than Tamron would at one point in time certainly cease to include a wider flange than Sony's in their design-considerations.

In combination, if Tamron is encountering these difficulties as Sigma does, then maybe this statement-release by Tamron is intended at Canon to keep in consideration that some of Tamron future-E-mount designs may only work if Canon opts for a flange as narrow as Sony's and that Tamron will not invest into making any lenses that are particular to Canon, so the smoke they are sending might in effect actually mean the opposite of what it is saying. A two-sided coin.

It is up to Canon and Nikon now. We do not know how many patents/designs Tamron or Sigma already have in their drawers for varying FF-mirrorless flanges. They would certainly prefer to manufacture lens-designs that work for Sony and all FF-mirrorless-mounts to come.

That said, I'd prefer to see an EF-FF-mirrorless over a short-flanged-FF-mirrorless from Canon. Or a sturdy and reliable hybrid, if that is feasable.

 

[unfocused]

...Tamron is informing Canon that they are willing to aid a system that would otherwise be growing too slowly to compete with Sony...

...maybe this statement-release by Tamron is intended at Canon to keep in consideration that some of Tamron future-E-mount designs may only work if Canon opts for a flange as narrow as Sony's and that Tamron will not invest into making any lenses that are particular to Canon...

Canon could not care less about Tamron's plans. The only message Tamron is sending is one to consumers, that they intend to offer lenses for Canon and Nikon mirrorless cameras no matter what mount the companies eventually select.

 

[KeithBreazeal]

There aren't any new format mounts patented by Canon so far, so it's existing lenses for whatever uncloaks.

 

[Talys]

...Tamron is informing Canon that they are willing to aid a system that would otherwise be growing too slowly to compete with Sony...

...maybe this statement-release by Tamron is intended at Canon to keep in consideration that some of Tamron future-E-mount designs may only work if Canon opts for a flange as narrow as Sony's and that Tamron will not invest into making any lenses that are particular to Canon...

Canon could not care less about Tamron's plans. The only message Tamron is sending is one to consumers, that they intend to offer lenses for Canon and Nikon mirrorless cameras no matter what mount the companies eventually select.

This

 

[Talys]

By the way:

Are you planning to create Sony E-mount versions of your existing SP primes and zooms, or will you make entirely new designs?

We’re not planning on making Sony E-mount versions of our existing lenses, no. Our concept is a little different to Sigma’s. We’re trying to customize lenses specifically for FE, otherwise they’d be too big. When it comes to autofocus, mirrorless has different requirements too. Mirrorless cameras are good for movies as well as stills, and existing AF motors aren’t very good for video. This lens [the new 28-75mm F2.8] has a stepping motor for autofocus, which is better for video.

So there you have it. Another focus by wire lens. Booo!

But, also the philosophy. I will purchase lenses that are ideal for photography. I don't give a rat's ass about video -- I wouldn't take a 1000% improvement for video at a cost of a 5% penalty for stills, because the number of videos I intend to take is zero.

For example -- focus by wire to allow T/W electronic zooming.

 

[ahsanford]

I will purchase lenses that are ideal for photography. I don't give a rat's ass about video -- I wouldn't take a 1000% improvement for video at a cost of a 5% penalty for stills, because the number of videos I intend to take is zero.

For example -- focus by wire to allow T/W electronic zooming.

Another examples:

• FBW could deliver similar focus speed / accuracy as ring USM lenses for a lot less money
• FBW by wire may be the only way I'll ever get a proper Canon 50 prime. :'(
• FBW can be ultra quiet, which is not just useful for video.

I'm no fan myself, but I see the writing on the wall. Nano USM may be our best hope if Ring USM isn't happening.

- A

 

[mb66energy]

For me it's much more interesting if Canon is ready for FF mirrorless.

To adapt a potentially new flange distance by welding a tube on existing lenses is no engineering art.
To develop new lenses which exploit the advantages of a shorter flange distance is engineering art and I bet that we will see a short flange distance mount on the Canon FF mirrorless bodies. I am shure they do not reuse the EF-M mount but maybe use the standard EF mount geometry and the adapter is nothing less and nothing more than an e.g. 15mm extension tube.

 

[AvTvM]

I will purchase lenses that are ideal for photography. I don't give a rat's ass about video -- I wouldn't take a 1000% improvement for video at a cost of a 5% penalty for stills, because the number of videos I intend to take is zero.

interesting - agree 100% here

For example -- focus by wire to allow T/W electronic zooming.

... and am 100% opposite here.

For the longest time i would like to get lenses *without any* rings. No zoom ring on zooms, and definitely no focus ring on any lens. No physical switches either. Just plain, cylindrical tubes with glass inside and some decent electronics. Easy to weatherseal -> IP67 or better. And (hopefully) somewhat less expensive as well. The more "digital, solid-state, mechanics-free", the more i like it. Ideally also finally lenses with non-mechanical, non-iris, electronic aperture device.

Since my first AF camera [Minolta 7000, around 1986] I have rarely switched a lens into manual focus mode and messed around with a focus ring. Ever since i had Canon DSLRs and MILCs, never ever.

I'd prefer any and all physical control points to be *on the camera body*. Ideally an extension of the (full) EOS UI concept just with an added multifunctional, context-sensitive and user-re-programmable lens mount base ring [as 3rd dial, in addition to front and rear wheels].

A new lens mount and lineup of new native FF lenses for FF mirrorless presents an excellent, once in many decades opportunity for Canon to "get it right for" for the next, younger, coming 2 generations of imaging enthusiasts ... and i really hope, that Canon - as in 1987 (EF mount) ... will not bow to the whining of some backwards-looking, old-school, old-glass types. Luckily, transition to a new mount will be much less painful this time, since all *LEGACY* EF lenses will keep working - provided their owners can get their mind around using an "adapter" ... horribile dictu! ;D

 

[ahsanford]

A new lens mount and lineup of new native FF lenses for FF mirrorless presents an excellent, once in many decades opportunity for Canon to "get it right for" for the next, younger, coming 2 generations of imaging enthusiasts ... and i really hope, that Canon - as in 1987 (EF mount) ... will not bow to the whining of some backwards-looking, old-school, old-glass types. Luckily, transition to a new mount will be much less painful this time, since all *LEGACY* EF lenses will keep working - provided their owners can get their mind around using an "adapter" ... horribile dictu! ;D

There's an inflection point where the weight of changing a standard feature completely obliterates the potential upside of that new standard feature. For instance, like changing all of a country's wall power outlets/sockets. In theory, there is a better solution than what we have today, but the opportunity to improve is utterly crushed by the migration cost and implementation phase headaches.

EF is not a wall socket, of course, but you get my point. You can't just walk away from EF and rebuild it. The return on that investment is less than poor.

If Canon goes thin instead of EF, I'd be stunned to see more than just a handful of new mount lenses -- for the rest they'd just point us to an EF adaptor. To do otherwise is to burn cash, alienate the largest userbase, and for what? Some slightly smaller aggregate body + lens size? I just don't see that happening.

Your amazing mirrorless lens future needs a ton more sexy to get Canon to underwrite it. And I don't see that 'ton more sexy' unless we are talking about the super tiny glass that a curved sensor would bring. And I don't think that's what Canon will release.

- A

 

[Talys]

For the longest time i would like to get lenses *without any* rings. No zoom ring on zooms, and definitely no focus ring on any lens. No physical switches either. Just plain, cylindrical tubes with glass inside and some decent electronics. Easy to weatherseal -> IP67 or better. And (hopefully) somewhat less expensive as well. The more "digital, solid-state, mechanics-free", the more i like it. Ideally also finally lenses with non-mechanical, non-iris, electronic aperture device.

You're entitled to your preference, of course, but I don't think this would be popular or sell, beyond P&S or superzoom non ILCs. One problem with electronic switch zoom from the camera body is that you have very poor control of acceleration. To go from 100-400, you can do it on a Canon in a fraction of a second, likewise from a focusing perspective of MFD to infinity. As soon as it's electronic (just look at the Sony 100-400 focus ring, or the Canon 70-300 USM II one), you're at the mercy of either a conservatively slow mechanism or AI that poorly reflects what you actually want to do; if you take away the mechanism of indicating acceleration, the camera can't even do that.

Since my first AF camera [Minolta 7000, around 1986] I have rarely switched a lens into manual focus mode and messed around with a focus ring. Ever since i had Canon DSLRs and MILCs, never ever.

In this, we are very different. I too, had a Minolta Maxxuum around then (I think it was a 5000i? I forget). I have always used manual focus extensively, and still do now.

There are some types of photography like macro or product where the working depth of field is quite shallow, and the camera simply cannot know where I want to focus. There are often busy scenes where the AF can pick the wrong subject. And when I'm taking photos of birds, I often use the manual ring to set it to approximately where the subject is, to help the AF system and so that I can compose in-flight shots just before I kick in AF. And, for things like feeder shots, I'll chimp the MF ring a little bit back or forwards as a songbird interacts with another bird, because focus will change slightly -- and I know by how much by experience, while the AF system just doesn't pick it up quickly enough.