# Tamron Announces 18-400mm All-In-One™ Zoom..... Sort Of



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 21, 2017)

```
This is official information from Tamron, though the “official” announcement will come on Friday, June 23 @ 3AM EST.</p>
<p><strong>Tamron Announces 18-400mm All-In-One™ Zoom</strong>

We are pleased to announce the latest addition to the all-in-one™ zoom line-up:</p>
<ul>
<li>18-400mm F/3.5-5.6 Di II VC HLD all-in-one zoom lens (model B028) in Canon and Nikon mounts</li>
</ul>
<p>The 18-400mm is a new exciting flagship lens that adds to our current line-up and exemplifies Tamron’s all-in-one expertise and the options these great lenses afford photographers of all levels. This new unprecedented all-in-one is positioned as a compact ultra-tele zoom with all-in-one, wide-angle versatility for APS-C cameras. It will target enthusiasts who desire even greater ultra-tele capability for sports, wildlife and more, but also enjoy the versatility of the all-in-one lens for various photographic opportunities. Think of a 100-400mm with portrait, 1:2.9 macro, and wide angle capability for added convenience.</p>
<p>The 16-300mm will remain in the line for the enthusiast customer also looking for great range and versatility, but from a more compact, all-in-one lens prioritizing wide angle for travel and full range for every-day shooting and more.</p>
<p>These two lenses, while similar in many ways, offer different choices for the customer from the pioneer and leader of the all-in-one zoom lens category.</p>
<p><strong>KEY FEATURES:</strong></p>
<p>The power of ultra-telephoto. The versatility of all-in-one.</p>
<p>Powerful performance that exceeds your imagination. Introducing the world’s first ultra-telephoto all-in-one zoom with a 22.2X zoom range. Now you can shoot everything from vast landscapes to details of a bird with a single lens. The latest optical design includes a complex series of elements including LD (Low Dispersion) glass and an aspherical lens. Problems like chromatic aberration and distortion are controlled throughout the entire zoom range, resulting in sharp, superior images-whether you’re shooting at wide-angle or telephoto. Capture thrilling close-up action in a snap.</p>
<ul>
<li>World’s first 22.2x ultra-telephoto all-in-one zoom lens</li>
<li>620mm full-frame equivalent telephoto reach</li>
<li>VC for confident telephoto shooting</li>
<li>HLD means quick, accurate and quiet autofocus</li>
<li>1:2.9 Max. Mag. Ratio for versatile close-up capability</li>
<li>Moisture-Resistant Construction</li>
<li>Compatible with TAMRON TAP-in Console™, an optional accessory product</li>
</ul>

		<style type='text/css'>
			#gallery-1 {
				margin: auto;
			}
			#gallery-1 .gallery-item {
				float: left;
				margin-top: 10px;
				text-align: center;
				width: 50%;
			}
			#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-30027 gallery-columns-2 gallery-size-thumbnail'><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon portrait'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/unnamed-1.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/unnamed-1-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/unnamed-1-168x168.jpg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/unnamed-1-144x144.jpg 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/2017/06/unnamed.png'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/unnamed-168x168.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/unnamed-168x168.png 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/unnamed-144x144.png 144w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><br style="clear: both" />
		</div>

<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
<div style="font-size:0px;height:0px;line-height:0px;margin:0;padding:0;clear:both"></div>
```


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 21, 2017)

All in one does seem unlikely. I expect that its only reasonable use will be in very well lit areas, like outside on bright sunny days where it might be stopped down at least one stop.

For many, who would value the zoom ratio over the limitations, it may work out well. After all, in the US, at least, there are far more entry level DSLR users who would be potential customers than enthusiast photographers who are picky about image quality, and recognize the limitations that a super zoom brings.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 21, 2017)

Note that it is compatible with the Tap-in console.... This really helps in future-proofing the lens!

I am getting quite curious about how well the lens performs......


----------



## TeT (Jun 21, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> I am getting quite curious about how well the lens performs......



Somewhere between the EFS 18-135 & the 70-300 L would be a great start for image quality...


----------



## Etienne (Jun 21, 2017)

If it is really good i the 100-400 range, it would be an interesting lens. The 18-100 range could just be a bonus for emergencies. Many people now use Canon's full frame 100-400 on APSC cameras.


----------



## justawriter (Jun 21, 2017)

If I didn't already have my Tamronosaurus Rex (150-600) I would be very interested in this lens. I'm still interested, but that is just the GAS talking. (lottery dream: walking into the camera store and demanding "ONE OF EVERYTHING!!!!") I also wonder if Canon's improving high ISO quality will ease concerns over higher minimum f-stops in longer lenses. (obligatory reference to Sigma f2.8 200-500 with native bearers not included.)


----------



## aceflibble (Jun 21, 2017)

That magnification means there's some fairly severe focus breathing going on. That said, when you've got up to 400mm to play with, focus breathing isn't too much of an issue.

I'm not sure why anybody would complain about this not being a low-light monster; _obviously_ an APS-C zoom built for maximum framing versatility is not going to be very fast. In other places I've seen people complain that it's not a full 1:1 macro, too, and that the 18mm end isn't wide enough. What on Earth do people expect? A 10-400 >f/2.8 1:1 STM WR DO?


On paper, this final spec looks really nice. More people have APS-C SLRs than 35mm SLRs and for a helluva lot of people, this will be the only lens they ever need. The big question is the price. APS-C lenses have to be reasonably priced 'cause the potential market for them is rarely prepared or capable of dropping a large amount of cash on any single product. But of course, fitting all these features into one lens is expensive and Tamron have to make their money somehow. If it's cheap, I expect the image quality to be quite poor so production costs can also be kept low and they can actually make some money off of it; if it's expensive then I question how long it will be around for.


----------



## -1 (Jun 21, 2017)

...620mm full-frame equivalent telephoto reach...

Right...


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 21, 2017)

Good points all. I recall Sigma's Kazuto Yamaki making a comment to the similar effect naming the most challenging lens to design and manufacture: 18-300 Macro Contemporary lens. 
There is a dedicated close up lens available for the lens from Sigma that enables 1:2 maximum magnification ratio. 
The single most popular Sigma Contemporary lens. 

https://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/contemporary/c_18_300_35_63/




aceflibble said:


> ... I'm not sure why anybody would complain about this not being a low-light monster; _obviously_ an APS-C zoom built for maximum framing versatility is not going to be very fast. In other places I've seen people complain that it's not a full 1:1 macro, too, and that the 18mm end isn't wide enough. What on Earth do people expect? A 10-400 >f/2.8 1:1 STM WR DO?
> 
> 
> On paper, this final spec looks really nice. More people have APS-C SLRs than 35mm SLRs and for a helluva lot of people, this will be the only lens they ever need. The big question is the price. APS-C lenses have to be reasonably priced 'cause the potential market for them is rarely prepared or capable of dropping a large amount of cash on any single product. But of course, fitting all these features into one lens is expensive and Tamron have to make their money somehow. If it's cheap, I expect the image quality to be quite poor so production costs can also be kept low and they can actually make some money off of it; if it's expensive then I question how long it will be around for.


----------



## 9VIII (Jun 21, 2017)

-1 said:


> ...620mm full-frame equivalent telephoto reach...
> 
> Right...



It is really weird that they said "620".
Canon's APS-C bodies crop to 640mm, and Nikon crops to 600 even.


----------



## Talys (Jun 21, 2017)

TeT said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > I am getting quite curious about how well the lens performs......
> ...



It would be pretty amazing if it had as good IQ as the 18-135, IMO. 18-135 is quite good at 50; I think it's very acceptable for most tasks between 30 - 90 or so (about half of it's FR), and reasonably poor at the "bonus" high end. If there's any half of the FR between 18-400 that was comparable to that... I think I'd actually buy one, lol. I guess it would depend on whether it could fit in a Lexus SUV glovebox when attached to a rebel body


----------



## Ian K (Jun 21, 2017)

I have great difficulty believing that it can do Macro at almost 3 times life size. Now if they mean maximum ratio of 0.34 (i.e. 1/2.9) then I can believe it (canon's 100-400 II can do 0.44). But, neither of them is really Macro, i.e. larger than life size.


----------



## photonius (Jun 21, 2017)

Ian K said:


> I have great difficulty believing that it can do Macro at almost 3 times life size. Now if they mean maximum ratio of 0.34 (i.e. 1/2.9) then I can believe it (canon's 100-400 II can do 0.44). But, neither of them is really Macro, i.e. larger than life size.



Well, it must be 0.34. I says 1:2.9 (unless it was edited and it was different before), which is 0.34.


----------



## photonius (Jun 21, 2017)

aceflibble said:


> That magnification means there's some fairly severe focus breathing going on. That said, when you've got up to 400mm to play with, focus breathing isn't too much of an issue.
> I'm not sure why anybody would complain about this not being a low-light monster; _obviously_ an APS-C zoom built for maximum framing versatility is not going to be very fast. In other places I've seen people complain that it's not a full 1:1 macro, too, and that the 18mm end isn't wide enough. What on Earth do people expect? A 10-400 >f/2.8 1:1 STM WR DO?
> 
> 
> On paper, this final spec looks really nice. More people have APS-C SLRs than 35mm SLRs and for a helluva lot of people, this will be the only lens they ever need. The big question is the price. APS-C lenses have to be reasonably priced 'cause the potential market for them is rarely prepared or capable of dropping a large amount of cash on any single product. But of course, fitting all these features into one lens is expensive and Tamron have to make their money somehow. If it's cheap, I expect the image quality to be quite poor so production costs can also be kept low and they can actually make some money off of it; if it's expensive then I question how long it will be around for.



Just a comment on the focus breathing: even Canon's 100-400 II has substantial focus breathing at minimal focus distance. It goes to 0.31x magnification at 980mm minimal focus distance, which is similar to the much shorter focal length lens 55-250 STM, which goes to 0.31x at 850mm minimal focus distance.


----------



## photonius (Jun 21, 2017)

I'm curious about the weight of this, and the size. It's not mentioned. But it should be at least 1000 g, if it's f5.6 at 400mm, most likely more. I'm surprised they didn't make it f6.3. That's not your casual walk-around lens. Useful on a Safari, when you don't want to change lenses in a dusty environment. Of course, like everybody: what's the IQ...


----------



## photonius (Jun 21, 2017)

photonius said:


> I'm curious about the weight of this, and the size. It's not mentioned. But it should be at least 1000 g, if it's f5.6 at 400mm, most likely more. I'm surprised they didn't make it f6.3. That's not your casual walk-around lens. Useful on a Safari, when you don't want to change lenses in a dusty environment. Of course, like everybody: what's the IQ...


Oh wait, in the other post (without any comments yet), the specs look different.

It's f6.3, and the weight is 726 g.... Gee. If that is true, they must have not many large diameter elements at the front, or use plastic elements. But 400mm at 726 sounds like the "steal", if true and if the IQ is ok.


----------



## dufflover (Jun 21, 2017)

I'm not expecting much on the IQ front - at least for anyone with anything more than a "Wannabe or I like a big camera" interest in photography. Ofcourse that still leaves _plenty_ of customers who would not care/notice the IQ difference. I think it would ok at f/8 though.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jun 21, 2017)

dufflover said:


> I'm not expecting much on the IQ front - at least for anyone with anything more than a "Wannabe or I like a big camera" interest in photography. Ofcourse that still leaves _plenty_ of customers who would not care/notice the IQ difference. I think it would ok at f/8 though.



I'm slated to look at one in a few weeks, and I'm open to being pleasantly surprised, but I wasn't a huge fan of the 16-300 as I felt it had more optical compromises than what I was willing to accept. Further expanding the zoom range doesn't fill me with hope, but, as you point out, that huge zoom range is a killer marketing sales point, and the major audience for this lens is probably not the most optically discerning.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jun 21, 2017)

I agree the audience for this is really the tourist / keen snapper. If it's quality is reasonably good it will do very well If it gets 4 stars in a review it will be a great success. What a zoom range. It's perfect for travel depending on how heavy it is. I'm sure it will look substantial too in a sort of "mine is bigger than yours" way. It's a clever little niche for Tamron.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 21, 2017)

Ian K said:


> I have great difficulty believing that it can do Macro at almost 3 times life size. Now if they mean maximum ratio of 0.34 (i.e. 1/2.9) then I can believe it (canon's 100-400 II can do 0.44). But, neither of them is really Macro, i.e. larger than life size.



You seem to be misinterpreting a convention for stating maximum magnification (and, in fact, for ratios in general – the first number is the numerator, the second is the denominator). 1:1 = 1x = life size reproduction. 1:2 = 0.5x = half life size. My MP-E 65mm goes up to 5:1 = 5x = 5-times life size. So the stated spec of 1:2.9 = 0.34x = about one-third life size. No 'if' about it, that's what they mean because that's a perfectly appropriate way to specify it.


----------



## Trovador (Jun 21, 2017)

Wow, had a 18-270 like 8 years ago which I gave to my wife and haven't looked at these "all in ones" lenses since...didn't even know that a 16-300 existed...if IQ is at least acceptable, paired with a 40mm pancake would be great for travel. Not easy carrying a wide angle, 24-70 2.8 and 100-400 for traveling.


----------



## SkynetTX (Jun 21, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> ... enthusiast photographers who are picky about image quality and recognize the limitations of a super zoom ...



Have to agree. The bigger the zoom range, the lower the image quality. If you can have only one lens with you it's better to have a 24-70 or similar general lens.


----------



## FramerMCB (Jun 21, 2017)

SkynetTX said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > ... enthusiast photographers who are picky about image quality and recognize the limitations of a super zoom ...
> ...



How about Canon's venerable 28-300mm 3.5-5.6L IS? Really a pretty good lens for an all-arounder. But not very lightweight or small. And not super zippy on the autofocusing like most all of the newer, big L zooms.


----------



## magarity (Jun 21, 2017)

Trovador said:


> Not easy carrying a wide angle, 24-70 2.8 and 100-400 for traveling.


Are those the right comparison? This Tamron is EF-S not EF. So would it be better to compare its quality and weight to dragging around the base set of Canon EF-S: 10-18, 18-55, 55-250 which make an easily carry-able travel set? Then this thing's bonus is from 250-400 which Canon for some reason does not do in EF-S.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jun 21, 2017)

magarity said:


> Trovador said:
> 
> 
> > Not easy carrying a wide angle, 24-70 2.8 and 100-400 for traveling.
> ...


I would like an EF-S 250-400mm that is small, lightweight and inexpensive.
However, our friend Neuro has often explained to us that saving glass on EF-S lenses over 300mm would not be significant due to the size of the front element.
It would be a Canon alternative for those who do not want to risk the Sigma 100-400mm.


----------



## aceflibble (Jun 22, 2017)

SkynetTX said:


> Have to agree. The bigger the zoom range, the lower the image quality. If you can have only one lens with you it's better to have a 24-70 or similar general lens.


Sounds like you've never actually needed 400mm, if you think 70mm can even remotely compete.

The kind of thing people will want 18-400 for absolutely can not be touched by a 24-70 in any way. If you have limited space and yet you need that long reach, and you're on an APS-C body where the 24-70's wide angle also won't be particularly significant, that 24-70 really isn't even an option.



FramerMCB said:


> How about Canon's venerable 28-300mm 3.5-5.6L IS? Really a pretty good lens for an all-arounder. But not very lightweight or small. And not super zippy on the autofocusing like most all of the newer, big L zooms.


That's basically what we're seeing here: an evolution of the super-zooms which already exist. This should be smaller, lighter, quicker, and expands the zoom range. Even if the very widest and longest ends of the range aren't optically great, you could treat it as a newer 28-300 with the rest of the range as a 'bonus'. (Which is how I treat all zooms, really, as no zoom on the planet is absolutely perfect through the _entire_ range; there's always at least one point where it's weaker and I try to avoid using.)

Just as once-upon-a-time we had the 35-105 which became the 24-105 and the 80-200 became the 70-200, this lens is (at least on paper) taking that 28-300 and making the same step forward.


----------

