# Tamron's Tap-in Console



## [email protected] (Jun 25, 2016)

I finally got around to trying out the Tamron Tap-in Console (a brand name that could only be created by a Japanese company that's over-confident in its translator's abilities). 

The interface is nicer than the Sigma dock's. It is also more functional, allowing for focus throw adjustment and a few other things. The focus throw adjustment is subtle. By way of example, the short throw focused from 12 feet to 3 feet in 15 degrees of motion, and the long throw did the same racking in a little more than 20 degrees of motion. 

I have the Tamron 35 and 85, but only the 85 works with the dock currently, as my 35mm needs a firmware update before it'll be compatible. There is a list of serial numbers on the Tamron site that shows which versions need an update and which do not. 

When I put the 85mm on the dock, it didn't need any focus adjustment, which was a little bit of a disappointment. At all ranges, it nails focus, so I can't report any good works attributable to the dock yet on the focus front. I should note that in the process of testing the lens, I think the 85mm proved to be the most consistent in focus I've ever tested. Even among the Canon L series. Don't know if I'm just lucky, or if this is generally true of the model. My 35mm 1.4 L II was about as good.

In all, I'm pretty happy with the dock, but impatient to have it work with my Tamron lenses. I have the 15-30 2.8 as well, but I don't think they plan on making that compatible with the dock via firmware. 

I own the Sigma dock, and I'm a big fan of that too, for those lenses. Yes, it's more work, but for the pixel peepers, it's worth it. I have roughly the same number of Tamron, Sigma and Canon lenses, and I do not think one brand has higher or lower average AFMA values when you're dealing with each brand's top of the line. But Sigma and Tamron give me more control over focus at different focus lengths. And, as it happens, it's necessary for some lenses. I hope that Canon in the future provides this feature. I'm happy with it being in-camera, rather than with a dock, as that allows for more customization per body. 

Last note: I think most of us have had a simplistic idea of how AFMA works; the idea being that there is a slight variation in mount tolerance or some such measure, which causes a front- or back-focusing that requires a corrective adjustment. But in AFMA'ing a couple dozen lenses over a few bodies over the years, I'm coming to the conclusion that these relationships aren't linear - or even a terribly smooth function. You don't notice that when you have only one value to set in AFMA. You seldom notice it when you have two values to set, as with Canon zooms. But when you have three (Tamron) or four (Sigma), you start to see that it's not a neat pattern of adjustment. I think this means there are probably multiple causes, some of which are pretty complex. I for one would like to know more about that, and I can't really find anything online that explores the issue beyond basic AFMA instruction. 

-tig


----------



## dcm (Jun 25, 2016)

[email protected] said:


> ...
> 
> Last note: I think most of us have had a simplistic idea of how AFMA works; the idea being that there is a slight variation in mount tolerance or some such measure, which causes a front- or back-focusing that requires a corrective adjustment. But in AFMA'ing a couple dozen lenses over a few bodies over the years, I'm coming to the conclusion that these relationships aren't linear - or even a terribly smooth function. You don't notice that when you have only one value to set in AFMA. You seldom notice it when you have two values to set, as with Canon zooms. But when you have three (Tamron) or four (Sigma), you start to see that it's not a neat pattern of adjustment. I think this means there are probably multiple causes, some of which are pretty complex. I for one would like to know more about that, and I can't really find anything online that explores the issue beyond basic AFMA instruction.
> 
> -tig



My Tamron 150-600 exhibits an interesting behavior on my 6D that highlights this issue. I used FoCal to calibrate the lens and set the AFMA values for 150 (-10) and 600 (+6). I still struggled with focus at intermediate focal lengths after this so I used FoCal to run through the marked focal lengths and found that it jumped to +5 at 200 and varied from +5 to +8 between 200 and 600. Since I primarily use it at longer focal lengths I set both AFMA values to +6 (best fit across the range) and only use it from 200-600. I haven't yet repeated the experiment with the 1DX2. It appears the Tap-In console could help with this situation, were it compatible with the 150-600.

I talked with Tamron and sent them images to demonstrate the issue. They will check and adjust the focus when I send it in for the firmware update. I'll AFMA the 1DX2 before I send it in so I can compare before/after.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 25, 2016)

I've seen a similar situation with a Canon 100-400 Mark I. I don't think people pay attention to this because with the Canon AFMA process, people stick one or two values in and move along. Why would they test out what their 70-200 is doing at 85mm?

I think it's also the case that a couple years ago AFMA values of 0-4 were considered invisible. Nowadays, though, we have people with 50mp sensors cropping long lenses, so - for some people - it does matter.


----------

