# New Tamron Prime Lenses Coming



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 28, 2015)

```
It looks like we’ll be seeing some new Tamron prime lenses very shortly.</p>
<p>SP 35 mm F1.8 Di VC USD (Model F012)</p>
<ul>
<li>Mount Canon, Nikon, Sony</li>
<li>No VC for Sony</li>
</ul>
<p>SP 45 mm F1.8 Di VC USD (Model F013)</p>
<ul>
<li>Mount Canon, Nikon, Sony</li>
<li>No VC for Sony</li>
</ul>
<p>Tamron definitely needs some updated fast prime lenses, and hopefully these come in well under the pricing of Sigma ART series primes. It’s also nice to see VC on some faster lenses.</p>
```


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 28, 2015)

F1.8 with Image Stabilizer. 

I'm in.


----------



## IglooEater (Aug 28, 2015)

I wonder of the 45mm 1.8 vc will work for ahansford


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Aug 28, 2015)

Tamron, the soup nazi of VC. 

Sony! No VC for you!


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Aug 28, 2015)

a 45mm could be an interesting focal length.


----------



## siegsAR (Aug 28, 2015)

I wonder how their 35 perform against Canon's 35 f/2 with IS? Also the price...


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 28, 2015)

siegsAR said:


> I wonder how their 35 perform against Canon's 35 f/2 with IS? Also the price...


I imagine a similar price with the Canon 35mm F2 IS.
If the Tamron has 80% of the image quality, and cost less than the Canon, can be advantageous because the aperture F1.8


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 28, 2015)

siegsAR said:


> I wonder how their 35 perform against Canon's 35 f/2 with IS? Also the price...



+1. The Canon 35 f/2 IS is about 600 new or less than 500 through the refurb store. How much of a lower price will there be to entice people to consider the Tamron? 100? 200? And the difference of of 1/3 of a stop -- doesn't seem that significant.


----------



## LOALTD (Aug 28, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> F1.8 with Image Stabilizer.
> 
> I'm in.




Could not have said it better myself! Tripods are for suckers!


----------



## preppyak (Aug 28, 2015)

PhotographyFirst said:


> Tamron, the soup nazi of VC.
> 
> Sony! No VC for you!


Probably more complicated to make with the shorter distance, and some Sony's already have the stabilization in camera.


----------



## KungFeuz (Aug 28, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> siegsAR said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder how their 35 perform against Canon's 35 f/2 with IS? Also the price...
> ...


That extra third of a stop will be a life saver.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Aug 28, 2015)

I wonder if pricing will be around the $800 mark in order to compete with:
1) vs 35mm f/1.4L II: Considerably lower price and also has VC
2) vs 35mm f/1.4 Art: has VC (maybe weather-sealed and similar optical performance???)
3) vs 35mm f/2 IS: Slightly faster (maybe weather-sealed and also less vignette???)


----------



## Luds34 (Aug 28, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> siegsAR said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder how their 35 perform against Canon's 35 f/2 with IS? Also the price...
> ...



The other thing is that Tamron seems to have figured out the Canon focus system alot better then Sigma. Or at least figured it out earlier as maybe Sigma finally cracked that nut with their latest stuff. The couple of Tamron lenses I have owned have focused spot on and consistently. Tamron's latest lenses seem to give like 90% of the performance of the Canon equivalent lens for roughly half the price.

While I probably will not be purchasing either of these lenses as I already have primes in the 35mm, 40mm, and 50mm ranges, consider me quite intrigued. I'll be following these developments.


----------



## Luds34 (Aug 28, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> I wonder if pricing will be around the $800 mark in order to compete with:
> 1) vs 35mm f/1.4L II: Considerably lower price and also has VC
> 2) vs 35mm f/1.4 Art: has VC (maybe weather-sealed and similar optical performance???)
> 3) vs 35mm f/2 IS: Slightly faster (maybe weather-sealed and also less vignette???)



Really? You think $800? I can't imagine it going for more then $500. I'm assuming size/weight probably similar to the Canon 35mm f/2 IS. That is probably it's closet competitor and I'd think they need to undercut it on price. Not to discount the 1/3 stop, but f/1.8 and f/2 pretty darn close. Depending on "rounding" of the aperture numbers the lenses could be the same actual T-stops.


----------



## Solar Eagle (Aug 29, 2015)

I bet the 45 VC sells real well since Canon hasn't given a 50 IS yet. From what I've read on here if they do it won't be a 1.4, but who knows what other tech Canon is sitting on.


----------



## andrewflo (Aug 29, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> siegsAR said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder how their 35 perform against Canon's 35 f/2 with IS? Also the price...
> ...



Good speculation. I did try the SP 15-30mm for a few weeks before exchanging it for a 16-35mm f/4L and I have to say the image quality was unbelievable. Without pixel peeping at 400% at brick walls, it felt like the Tamron outperformed the Canon, even at f/2.8. The build quality was better too. I traded it in purely for portability and filter threads.

This is of course saying a lot considering the Canon f/4 is stunning. Basically I wouldn't count Tamron out against the 35mm f/2 IS just yet 

Tamron seriously stepped up their SP line with the 15-30mm. It's WAAY better than the SP 24-70 or SP 70-200, which were already great lenses as it stood.

I'll be patiently waiting to see if they can up the ante again with these new primes  A 45mm f/1.8 VC sounds terrific IMO.


----------



## Luds34 (Aug 29, 2015)

andrewflo said:


> Tamron seriously stepped up their SP line with the 15-30mm. It's WAAY better than the SP 24-70 or SP 70-200, which were already great lenses as it stood.



I really wanted to get that lens for my UWA zoom. However the lack of traditional filters got me too. I've heard the distortion is really well controlled on that lens. A lot of people focus on sharpness... but stopped down the 17-40L I use is plenty sharp, it's the distortion that is fairly bad. People don't even need to get to the edge of the frame and they get pretty bloated. Granted, it is more or less my landscape lens, but still. In a perfect world where money was no object I think I'd own the Zeiss Distagon 15mm. I hear the (lack of) distortion on that lens is awesome!


----------



## Arty (Aug 29, 2015)

andrewflo said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > siegsAR said:
> ...


Optics will need to be fine and the AF needs to be fast and accurate before I would be interested. The 45 looks interesting, but only if the VC is fast. I am in no hurry to buy more lenses, but I sure would like to see a Canon 50 F2 IS with performance like the 35F2 IS.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 29, 2015)

I'll definitely review both lenses, but I am more interested in the 45 than the 35 (I'm a big fan of the 35mm f/2 IS). Size is going to matter with these. Sigma has been making some great prime lenses, but they are HUGE! I think there is a market for more compact lenses, particularly for street and general purpose shooters.

Part of the reason I love my vintage 50mm f/1.4 SMC Takumar is it is so compact and easy to bring along as an option. Even if I don't end up using it, I don't regret bringing it along.



Luds34 said:


> The other thing is that Tamron seems to have figured out the Canon focus system alot better then Sigma. Or at least figured it out earlier as maybe Sigma finally cracked that nut with their latest stuff. The couple of Tamron lenses I have owned have focused spot on and consistently. Tamron's latest lenses seem to give like 90% of the performance of the Canon equivalent lens for roughly half the price...



That is my finding as well. I use the 15-30, 24-70, and 70-200 for my event and wedding work almost exclusively and I typically don't have to reject ANY images for missed focus when I review at the end.


----------



## sdsr (Aug 29, 2015)

preppyak said:


> PhotographyFirst said:
> 
> 
> > Tamron, the soup nazi of VC.
> ...



I think the Sony version is A-mount, not E-mount; and all Sony A mount bodies have IBIS. If so, the only people who will be irked are owners of Sony E-mount bodies without IBIS (which is most of them) who would want to mount these via an adapter (and, of course, owners of E-mount bodies who wish these were E-mount lenses).


----------



## andrewflo (Aug 29, 2015)

Arty said:


> andrewflo said:
> 
> 
> > ajfotofilmagem said:
> ...



Did you mean "as long as the AF is fast" instead of "VC"? Would have to agree if so. The SP 15-30 had really fast, silent, and accurate AF but on an UWA it's a different ball game than 45mm. 

Btw the VC on the 15-30 is way quieter than the IS on the Canon 16-35 f/4.

I've never used the Canon 24-70 II or Tamron SP 70-200... but I do have the SP 24-70 and Canon 70-200 II and the Canon is noticeably faster.

The SP 24-70 is ever so slightly slow in use, especially on a 6D where I almost always use center-point-recompose if I want confidence that the AF is locked in properly (sacrifice critical focus by recomposing has proved more reliable than trusting the 6D's outer focus points for me unfortunately).

But it's by no means a deal breaker! Tamron SP lenses really are 95% of Canon L-series, but at bargain prices.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Aug 29, 2015)

Luds34 said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder if pricing will be around the $800 mark in order to compete with:
> ...


Just because it is manufactured Tamron doesn't mean it needs to be cheap. (e.g. The SP 90mm f/2.8 macro is $750.) I don't see them offering such a unique product as weather-sealed 35mm with IS at $500, definitely not initially. The price might settle after a short while. I'm expecting $800 initially and dropping to $700 later. 

Although this is all based on my expectations of the lens (i.e. similar optical performance to the Sigma 35 Art, weather-sealed, 9 blade aperture, Lower vignette than the 35/2 IS)


----------



## Luds34 (Aug 30, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Luds34 said:
> 
> 
> > The other thing is that Tamron seems to have figured out the Canon focus system alot better then Sigma. Or at least figured it out earlier as maybe Sigma finally cracked that nut with their latest stuff. The couple of Tamron lenses I have owned have focused spot on and consistently. Tamron's latest lenses seem to give like 90% of the performance of the Canon equivalent lens for roughly half the price...
> ...



I think it was your high praise (among others of course) of the new Tamrons that helped me take a chance on the 150-600. $1k is a chunk of money to spend on a lens, especially one that is more specialized and not used very often.


----------



## Luds34 (Aug 30, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> Just because it is manufactured Tamron doesn't mean it needs to be cheap. (e.g. The SP 90mm f/2.8 macro is $750.) I don't see them offering such a unique product as weather-sealed 35mm with IS at $500, definitely not initially. The price might settle after a short while. I'm expecting $800 initially and dropping to $700 later.



Except that Tamron's excellent 90mm macro lens is competing against the EF 100 f/2.8L IS macro. So it is still undercutting it in price. I dunno, I think for good or bad, 3rd party manufacturers need to either have a far superior competing product (rarely going to happen) or a similar, "good enough" but beat it on price (common scenario). Otherwise, frankly why would you pass up Canon to pay more for the 3rd party equivalent?

Total side note, that Tamron 90mm macro lens is kind of on my wish list for a FF macro lens. You use to be able to get it for like $550 brand new from Amazon if I recall. I've heard good things about it. But I do little macro work and still use the EF-S 60mm when I need to do macro work.


----------



## ashmadux (Aug 31, 2015)

Looks like the 35mm wars is on and popping!

I'd love to pick up canons 35, but 500....nahhh.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Aug 31, 2015)

Luds34 said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Just because it is manufactured Tamron doesn't mean it needs to be cheap. (e.g. The SP 90mm f/2.8 macro is $750.) I don't see them offering such a unique product as weather-sealed 35mm with IS at $500, definitely not initially. The price might settle after a short while. I'm expecting $800 initially and dropping to $700 later.
> ...


You are correct in saying that the Tamron 90mm VC Macro is undercutting the 100L but it appears you forget that it is still more expensive than the 100 non-L macro. I believe that the 35/1.8 VC can slot itself into the same type of gap in the Canon 35mm line. 

Given Tamron's recent track record with lenses I wouldn't dismiss the possibility.


----------



## moreorless (Sep 1, 2015)

The sizes will be interesting to see anyway, will the 35mm be inline with the Nikon and Canon F/1.8 and F/2 lenses rather than the Sigma F/1.4, will the 45mm be a pancakish size? obviously isn't going to be as small as the 40mm F/2.8 but it could still be pretty small.


----------



## siegsAR (Sep 2, 2015)

^Saw it, turns out they're bigger than I wanted them to be. I'm looking to add a 40-45mm but for my intended purpose, the 40mm pancake would still be best for me.

I'd love to see how these new Tamrons perform though, I hope they're both very good for the price.

Btw, $599 - 45mm.


----------

