# Patent: Tamron 300mm f/2.8, 400mm f/4, 500mm f/4



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 5, 2018)

```
It looks like Tamron may be entering the world of fast supertelephoto lenses. Three different optical formulas have appeared in the same patent application from Tamron.</p>
<p><strong>Embodiment 1: 300mm F/2.8</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Focal length: 304.799 mm</li>
<li>F No.: 2.8</li>
<li>ω: 3.997</li>
<li>Image height: 21.64 mm</li>
<li>Back focus: 70.1919 mm</li>
<li>Lens length: 298.38 mm</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Embodiment 2: 400mm F/4</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Focal length: 396.296 mm</li>
<li>F No.: 4.0</li>
<li>ω: 2.963</li>
<li>Image height: 21.64 mm</li>
<li>Back focus: 102.3549 mm</li>
<li>Lens length: 332.36 mm</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Embodiment 3: 500mm F/4</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Focal length: 485.045 mm</li>
<li>F No.: 4.001</li>
<li>ω: 2.530</li>
<li>Image height: 21.64 mm</li>
<li>Back focus: 125.2621 mm</li>
<li>Lens length: 420.001 mm</li>
</ul>
<p>I think a 400mm f/4 is a lens missing from everyone’s lineup. Apologies to the Canon 400mm f/4 DO IS II, but I think a non-DO version would likely cost less and could give equal or better performance at the expense of reduced size and weight. Maybe there’s an engineering reason that I am unaware of as to why a non-DO 400mm f/4 doesn’t exist for Canon’s EF mount.</p>



		<style type='text/css'>
			#gallery-1 {
				margin: auto;
			}
			#gallery-1 .gallery-item {
				float: left;
				margin-top: 10px;
				text-align: center;
				width: 33%;
			}
			#gallery-1 img {
				border: 2px solid #cfcfcf;
			}
			#gallery-1 .gallery-caption {
				margin-left: 0;
			}
			/* see gallery_shortcode() in wp-includes/media.php */
		</style>
		<div id='gallery-1' class='gallery galleryid-32806 gallery-columns-3 gallery-size-thumbnail'><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/JPA_429223891_000016-1.gif'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/JPA_429223891_000016-1-168x168.gif" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/JPA_429223891_000016-1-168x168.gif 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/JPA_429223891_000016-1-144x144.gif 144w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/JPA_429223891_000016.gif'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/JPA_429223891_000016-168x168.gif" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/JPA_429223891_000016-168x168.gif 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/JPA_429223891_000016-144x144.gif 144w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/JPA_429223891_000020-53a25.gif'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/JPA_429223891_000020-53a25-168x168.gif" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/JPA_429223891_000020-53a25-168x168.gif 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/JPA_429223891_000020-53a25-144x144.gif 144w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><br style="clear: both" />
		</div>

<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## robinlee (Jan 5, 2018)

Woo hoo, hope it is as good as their G2 releases.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Jan 5, 2018)

I usually don't post with nothing substantive to say (yes, I know that point can be argued) - but this is very interesting news. Nothing long was interesting, until this. 500mm f/4!

And this may inspire the others to respond with similar offerings.


----------



## James Larsen (Jan 5, 2018)

I'm excited for these. Hoping Tamron hits it out of the park with these!


----------



## Pixel (Jan 5, 2018)

Kinda miffed that, apparently, nobody else wants to make a 600 f4.


----------



## slclick (Jan 5, 2018)

Sigma never made a mark across the board with long primes (which means don't chime in about a single particular great lens you owned once in a blue moon) so let's hope Tammy gets it right. There has never truly been econo choices for birding, let us hope.


----------



## RGF (Jan 6, 2018)

400 F4 would be nice.

Also like to compare weight of these lenses to Canon's - assuming that they are brought to market


----------



## rbr (Jan 6, 2018)

Tamron had an excellent 400 f4 with their adaptall mount years ago.


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 6, 2018)

Pixel said:


> Kinda miffed that, apparently, nobody else wants to make a 600 f4.



The market for $10,000 lenses is just a bit too restrictive.

After what we've seen with the latest round of zoom lenses, theoretically they could get 400f4 out the door for under $2K.
Even if the element is a few mm larger, the overall design is so much simpler I can't see this costing much more than the 150-600G2.
That might even get some people to upgrade from the Superzooms.


----------



## Chaitanya (Jan 6, 2018)

400 f/4 now that's a lens that I would purchase for mammals. Perfect compromise when 400 f/2.8 is just too big and heavy..


----------



## Chaitanya (Jan 6, 2018)

9VIII said:


> Pixel said:
> 
> 
> > Kinda miffed that, apparently, nobody else wants to make a 600 f4.
> ...


I highly doubt 400 f/4 will ever cost $2K even for a 3rd party manufacturer, more realistically it will come in around $3k-$3.5K.


----------



## Steve Dmark2 (Jan 6, 2018)

Finally some news i really like.
Maybe this puts more pressure on canon to update their lineup.
Im interested to see the pricetag on the Tamron primes.

Cheers Stefan


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 6, 2018)

Chaitanya said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Pixel said:
> ...



Yet they came out with a 150-600 at $800.... and the G2 version of the 150-600 is $1400. 600 at F6.3 means a 95mm filter, while 400mm at F4 means a 100mm filter...... not much difference.... and the 400 prime would be shorter and not require the mechanicals for a zoom mechanism. They could easily do a G2 quality lens for $2000.


----------



## IglooEater (Jan 6, 2018)

Choice is normally good for the overall market, so I’m excited to see what comes from Tamron. imho Sigma’s venture into that territory with the 500mm f/4 sports was just to expensive to choose over a used Canon edition.


----------



## LDS (Jan 6, 2018)

Canon had two 400/4.5 in the FD era, but they weren't brought to EF versions. Maybe they didn't sell that well? Could there be more market for them today, when faster ISO are less an issue? Fast digital cameras and AF, plus cheaper travels, probably made wildlife photography more widespread, and maybe an f/4 may sell anyway.

Canon used rear drop-in filters, though, although I don't know how often filters are used on such lenses.


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Jan 6, 2018)

Interested to see where Tamron would want to position this, if they produced them: do they go nice and inexpensive (but that will be linked to lesser materials) and then risk the criticism that the lens may be "cheap" (in the sense of not good) or go to the 50-70% price of Canon's product, with consequently better materials, but then look expensive for a non-Canon lens, which may not hold its value as well longer-term? 

I think there is a psychological price point for many people (certainly me) above which you think you may as well get the Canon product and be done. Out of interest, if a Canon 400 f/4 DO is (say) £6,500 / $7,000 / €7,000 then how much would you be prepared to pay for the Tammy 400 f/4 before you decided if you're spending that much, you may as well go further and get the Canon? For me, that is probably around the £2,000 mark max (if I were in the market for it).


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 6, 2018)

IglooEater said:


> Choice is normally good for the overall market, so I’m excited to see what comes from Tamron. imho Sigma’s venture into that territory with the 500mm f/4 sports was just to expensive to choose over a used Canon edition.



Yeah, IglooEater, I was looking to buy a 500mm Sigma. Reportedly an excellent lens, just as good as Canon's, but for reported focus shift affecting apertures greater than f/4 (not a great concern for me). That said, I found a used 500mm L II for 116% the cost of the best used Sigma 500 cost, so I bought the Canon of course, as it doesn't have the focus shift issue, and it'll retain value much more over time. 

Pretty sure we'll see Sigma's 500 come down to $4500 eventually from the $6k you see now. A sigma offering at 400mm could very well be a $2500 lens, if they chose to go for volume (something Tamron can do much more so than Sigma).

I suspect Tamron would do better to throw the 500mm into the market first, though. More demand, less competition. More of an upgrade market, where most owners of a 400 would need something special to "upgrade" to something that also only got 400mm. 

Would expect a Tamron 500 f/4 to go for $3500. Being the cost of a decent pro body, that's a pretty darned reasonable package. 

Further, I think the big white refresh from Canon will have to be priced lower than the version IIs simply due to existing and forthcoming competition. They might launch high, but I expect the effective price after discounts to be much lower than the current effective prices. When I borrow a big white from Canon now through its CPS program, they list on the invoice the value of the lens at $16,000, yet they charge $10k-12k in reality. Wouldn't be surprised if we are in the 5-figure range for the next generation once they catch up with supplying the market for those who just can't wait to pay the full price on pre-orders (a year in, typically).


----------



## RGF (Jan 6, 2018)

LDS said:


> Canon had two 400/4.5 in the FD era, but they weren't brought to EF versions. Maybe they didn't sell that well? Could there be more market for them today, when faster ISO are less an issue? Fast digital cameras and AF, plus cheaper travels, probably made wildlife photography more widespread, and maybe an f/4 may sell anyway.
> 
> Canon used rear drop-in filters, though, although I don't know how often filters are used on such lenses.



I remember a 500 F4.5 (I think EOS, not FD) but it was updated to 500 F4 IS (version 1)


----------



## RGF (Jan 6, 2018)

[email protected] said:


> it'll retain value much more over time.



Wonder how true this is. Not doubting the truth, just much better does Canon (or Nikon) glass hold their value than good 3rd party glass (excluding of course, Zeiss)


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 6, 2018)

RGF said:


> [email protected] said:
> 
> 
> > it'll retain value much more over time.
> ...



I spent the last two years buying and selling cameras and lenses, using the arbitrage profits accrued to pay for the 500. In the course of that, I have noticed that the Canon lenses retain value for longer. That, in part, is due to much larger discounting on the 3rd parties hurting the aftermarket. There are other reasons. With Sigma still up at its launch price, it's I DON'T believe it's a good candidate for value retention.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 6, 2018)

I've always thought it was a big opportunity lost over the past year or so for the lens companies not to make some long f/8 glass. Small and long. With bodies now doing pretty good AF at f/8, it's just obvious. Perhaps I'm just impatient, and it takes that long to design and start production. 

My dream would be a 600 f/8 DO, which would cut down on both width and length.


----------



## slclick (Jan 6, 2018)

[email protected] said:


> I've always thought it was a big opportunity lost over the past year or so for the lens companies not to make some long f/8 glass. Small and long. With bodies now doing pretty good AF at f/8, it's just obvious. Perhaps I'm just impatient, and it takes that long to design and start production.
> 
> My dream would be a 600 f/8 DO, which would cut down on both width and length.



If I lived somewhere with more yearly abundant sunshine, such as San Diego, I'd love longer and slower but living in a place with actual seasons and not as much available light, the need for f/4 is real.


----------



## Plainsman (Jan 7, 2018)

....made in China very probably so QC suspect 
...so better to purchase a used Canon equivalent for the same price


----------



## slclick (Jan 7, 2018)

Plainsman said:


> ....made in China very probably so QC suspect
> ...so better to purchase a used Canon equivalent for the same price



I find it hard to make build and pricing judgements on something that may or may not come to fruition


----------



## Plainsman (Jan 7, 2018)

slclick said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > ....made in China very probably so QC suspect
> ...



Tamron will surely follow Sigma


----------



## preppyak (Jan 7, 2018)

[email protected] said:


> hat, in part, is due to much larger discounting on the 3rd parties hurting the aftermarket.


3rd parties also do that to themselves. For example, Sigma 150-600 contemporary is nearly half its list price in about 3 years. The used market for that is comparably cheap...and if you bought early, well, you wont do that ever again with Sigma.

Whereas the Sports version has held its price, likewise for the Tamron G2. And their used markets are fairly steady as a result


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 7, 2018)

slclick said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > ....made in China very probably so QC suspect
> ...



I agree!

The day before Tamron came out with the 150-600, if you had predicted that lens for under $1000 people would have laughed at you. It arrived and sold out for half of a year, and then along came Sigma with another two..... Now they have the G2 version at almost L quality and with a dock for software updates for $1400. It is a very fine lens with a quality build. 

If they make a prime of a similar build, it will be a very sharp lens and once again, probably sell out for a half year until production can catch up....

They surprised us once, they can do it again.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Jan 8, 2018)

I think your are wrong about a 400 f/4 being much cheaper. The 400 f/4 DO II is only a tad dearer than the 300 f/2.8 and is exactly the sort of price I would have expected for a non DO version anyway, it won't be and can't be much cheaper than a 300 f/2.8. most people expected the mk II DO to be $10K, so the pricing was a actually quite good IMO.

Having said that Tamron will offer something much cheaper than Canon at any FL, but I'm more interested in them offering FE versions of these lenses, because Sony certainly will take years and ask 2x the price


----------



## Plainsman (Jan 8, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Plainsman said:
> ...



"..G2 version almost L quality.."

that's a plain daft statement
which Canon L lens are you comparing it with?
Canon AF, IS will always beat a Tamron and Canon L lenses have first class QC and build quality
Now most reviewers rate the G2 as slightly better than the G1
I had a G1 once and it was poor - much sharper on one side than the other due to optical alignment problem but it passed Tamron quality control in China.


----------



## RGF (Jan 9, 2018)

[email protected] said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > [email protected] said:
> ...



thanks


----------



## dslrdummy (Jan 10, 2018)

[email protected] said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > Choice is normally good for the overall market, so I’m excited to see what comes from Tamron. imho Sigma’s venture into that territory with the 500mm f/4 sports was just to expensive to choose over a used Canon edition.
> ...


I had been contemplating the Sigma 500 f4 for a while to replace my 300 2.8ii and then over the Xmas period there was a 15% discount being offered by one of our (Aussie) retailers so I bought it. Just took delivery so can't report on the focus shift issue yet but it is a sweet lense. As for Canon glass holding its value. Yes it does but the flip-side is that second hand big whites are not that cheap (here at least), assuming you can find them. Indeed, the second hand market here for Superteles is not big - I haven't had any bites on my near mint 300 after a couple of weeks on two sites.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 10, 2018)

dslrdummy, great luck with your new 500. Let us know what you think of focus shift. For my part, I seldom find myself shooting the 500 at thinner apertures, so it wouldn't be a big deal.


----------



## dslrdummy (Jan 10, 2018)

[email protected] said:


> dslrdummy, great luck with your new 500. Let us know what you think of focus shift. For my part, I seldom find myself shooting the 500 at thinner apertures, so it wouldn't be a big deal.


Thanks. I generally shoot the 300 with the extender for sport and wildlife so f4 as well. Just wanted a bit more reach and hopefully a tad sharper.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 10, 2018)

dslrdummy said:


> As for Canon glass holding its value. Yes it does but the flip-side is that second hand big whites are not that cheap (here at least), assuming you can find them. Indeed, the second hand market here for Superteles is not big - I haven't had any bites on my near mint 300 after a couple of weeks on two sites.



Having seen that the 300/2.8 II was selling very slowly on eBay, even from reputable dealers, I sold mine at the end of last October to a major dealer in used gear. It is still unsold on their site. Now that inflation is generally low and manufacturers are more aggressive in price cutting, with even Canon giving 10% discounts on all L lenses periodically, you will be lucky not to lose big money on buying new Canon big whites and then selling. The amount lost in buying a Tamron or Sigma 150-600mm and selling on at half-price is far less. The 500mm will lose a lot. But, you buy a lens to use it.


----------



## paylituzu (Jan 22, 2018)

Sigma never made a mark across the board with long primes (which means don't chime in about a single particular great lens you owned once in a blue moon) so let's hope Tammy gets it right. There has never truly been econo choices for birding, let us hope.


----------

