And now it’s here! Tamron officially released the lens which will ship from June 26 already for 26,000 Yen (about $255 or 187 Euro). Interestingly Tamron also wrote a note about the reason why they changed the lens spec and removed the in lens stabilization (google translated):
* This machine, which had been announced as (Vibration Compensation) equipped with VC in the development announcement of January 2013, but as a result of repeated various studies in the development process of subsequent, has decided not equipped.
Source: Tamron Japan.
98 Responses
“Suggested retail price: 65,000 yen (tax inc.)” = €470 or $640 though, isn’t it ?
Don’t know where you got that 26,000 Yen from, typo ?
http://www.tamron.co.jp/news/release_2014/0619_c001.html
Yeah, 26.000 yen would be just too cheap, even if the lens is optically not very good.
Damn! I could hardly believe the price. For a second I thought this lens was gonna be one hot seller!!
DPReview have got it mentioned as,
“It will be available on June 26th for $589.”
That has got to be a lot more than $255 😉
Makes sense, as the Yen (and €) price includes taxes, but $ doesn’t.
How will this be usable at focal lengths above 100 without VC?
By using IBIS .. ( you’re out of luck on older panny bodies. )
Newer Panasonic bodies doesn’t have IBIS either (e.g. GH4), it’s only the GX-7 that is a exceptio. The GX-7 still doesn’t offer IBIS in video and preview.
For longer lenses, I still prefer OIS over IBIS.
with high shutter speeds, or Panasonic GX-7 IBIS or Olympus IBIS
Seriously?
I imagine a combo of tripod, high shutter speed, hi ISO should get you there. I certainly wouldn’t shoot at almost 11X magnification, hand-held, and expects sharp results 🙂
11X magnification? The focal length multiplier isn’t the same as magnification. You need to factor in the subject distance to calculate that. The max magnification would be well under 1x with this lens’s minimum focusing distance.
150mm is no problem on any of the Olympus bodies with IS. Just get your shutter speed up over 1/60 with IS, or 1/250 without.
A common method for calculating the X-value in zooms is to divide the largest mm value by lowest mm value. 150 divided by 14 = 10.71X. I realize that since range is also affected by start and end values, (since a lens can have a starting point that is already “zoomed in”) but it is never the less a fact that this lens has an end value that is 10.71 times the start value.
The big difference is that in magnification, the X represents a power of 10, not an inverse geometric function of the focal length. Power functions grow much faster than geometric functions. 10X is firmly in microscope territory, generally with about a 1 inch subject distance. I’m not aware of any macro or telephoto lens that could even come close to 10X magnification.
My first camera was a Sony H50b – a wonderful bridge camera for it’s time. Sony claimed that it had a 15 X optical zoom, and you know what? It had a 31mm-465mm lens. 31 X15=465.
This is not because Sony knows less about cameras than you, or because they are lying about it and not getting caught by anyone, this is because they are using a calculation method that pretty much everyone agrees on, except of course you and a select handful of optical math geeks who “know the truth”.
I’m not out to insult you, but you attempted to make me sound like I didn’t know what I was talking about when I simply applied a widely accepted method for calculating “times zoom” and that’s really lame of you. Nobody cares if the flower isn’t really 10.7 times as big at full zoom as it was at zero zoom, what they care about is what they can relate to.
As a matter of fact,these guys in this forum are getting well into the details, how you really can’t use the “X” but thats not the point. The point is that this is still how we define X http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/13717/how-do-i-convert-lens-focal-length-mm-to-x-times-optical-zoom
The only point I’m trying to make is that the use of “X” for the comparison of focal lengths does not denote magnification. It relates only to the range of focal lengths a lens offers. The best solution is to only use the word magnification when you are actually talking about magnification. The X is an unfortunate and misleading suffix because it’s used to denote several very different things.
Sure, no problem for still photos with IBIS, but for video? Propably close to unusable. Price would have to be a LOT lower than Panny 14-140 for this lens to make sense.
the 40-150 is no problem hand-held outdoors. Anything over 1/250 and there’s no blur with IS off. With IS on (on the OM-D’s) I can shoot at 1/60 and get sharp shots and the viewfinder is stabilized when framing. So I’m not sure why you’re worried. 1/250 is nothing. No problem at base ISO.
Why can’t they make a switch? They did the same to Sony, assuming all A-mount cameras have IBIS, but they don’t.
effect on price and possibly physical weight and size. Lens Stabilization is a bit technical and expensive if it’s to be any good. I think they’re counting on future MFT cameras from Panasonic will incorporate IBIS as standard. Which I for one welcome 🙂
Nice a 30-300mm F7.0-11.6. Thats a nice lens. Lol.
Wrong calculation, it’s rather a 70–700mm F16–F25.
Please, trolls, be more specific and precise!
Actually is a 28-300 mm with a luminosity of f/3,5-5,8 and a dept of field equivalence of f/7-11,6 in 35mm terms.
There is nothing wrong with this lens except the price LOL.
Oh, my god, I’ve made a big mistake!
It’s actually a 20–200 mm F2.6–F2,8. Nice specifications, huh?
I don’t know where you those numbers LOL
“Keep it coming in get end we may get a 14-150mm f/1,4-2.4 LOL”
Our favourite troll @Viezevure converts all m43 lenses to full frame.
I tried to be even a bigger idiot and I’ve made the conversion first for large format Hasselblad, (crop 0.433), then for Nikon 1 (crop 2.7).
I hope I’ve successfully shown what a stupid thing is that converson game. 😀
I understood LOL.
Very good!
But, it’s better to specify that in the first post so you don’t come off looking as moronic as our local troll Seizure consistently does. 😉
Shouldn’t that be be a 10-100mm f2.6-4.2 if you’re talking about a 2.7x crop?
I quite like this one troll Vivezurez. We should keep him and feed him. He’s too stupid to know he keeps getting kicked in the head. Quaint little fellow, like a village idiot.
According to DPReview, the price price will be $589.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/06/19/tamron-launches-14-150mm-superzoom-for-micro-four-thirds
This is almost identical to Olympus 14-150mm. 10 dollars cheaper, 3mm shorter, 5g heavier, a bit brighter at the wide end, a bit darker at the tele end. I’m happy to finally see a Tamron m4/3 lens, but they could have easily skipped this one completely.
I completely agree. There is just no redeeming quality in this lens compared to what is already available.
Why oh why is no-one interested in resurrecting the excellent Olympus 12-60mm lens for m43?
I’d buy a M4/3 version 12-60mm of comparable, or better, quality of the excellent 4/3 lens in a New York Minute!
FYI: A NY Minute is the time it takes after a traffic light turns green and the first person honks their horn. 😉
How long does it take them to run up the back of you? 😉
?????
I dunno, but that’s a good question. 😉
I’m a cyclist and try to stay out of the way! Although you’ve got to be on the lookout for door prizes… moron drivers flinging their doors open without looking! I’ve had a few fairly spectacular crashes that way! 🙁
It’s a very long time, here in Paris, driver honk in the very same second the light turn green 🙂
But me too, i don’t the value of this Tamron against Oly and Pany, maybe outstanding IQ
Unless it can give sharper images (or better IQ) than the Olympus one. :
I hope so, but Tamron is not exactly known for IQ of its lenses…
I hear ya, this lens is obsolete already. If it was cheaper…. but… it’s not 🙁 Tamron isn’t known for superb image quality, more like “average” and therefore I think it’s a pointless addition to our choices. They could at least have added that OIS, that would make the price more understandable.
In case anyone interested, here is a comparison of the different lens choices:
Feel free to use it, link:
https://infogr.am/mft-14-140-and-14-150-lenses?src=web
Hmm, it’s not significantly smaller or lighter or brighter or cheaper… one has to ask why? Is it sharper?
I’d be interested in a comparison review & if it could do sharper at the long end than the Olympus lens & if it could match or better it in AF speed.
Panasonic probably made an “agreement” with Tamron to not add the VC.
I can say only two words: to expensive!
I don’t see many people buying this instead of Panasonic equivalent which has OIS and supports DFD in the newer cameras.
The price shod have been maximum 399$ for the people to buy it.
How is $255 too expensive when $399 would have been low enough?
Was there a typo on the news that have been edited since?
Apparently it’s double the price mentioned here.
Interesting math. B&H lists it for $589.99.
I’m in the market for a 14-140mm II for my GX1 kit (replacing a 14-42mm II and 45-150mm) and OIS is a big selling point.
I’ve never been a fan of Tampon lenses. I had a 28-80mm zoom at one time and was very happy when I sold it and bought a Nikon 35-135mm macro zoom lens (which I still use with my M4/3 cameras occasionally)
B&H lists it for $589.99 not 255$
Oh, so the typo is still not edited.
$589.99 is effectively a very steep price. I would take the Panasonic without a second thought at that price.
The price mentioned here is the official introduction price, the street price will be lower.
Oh??
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/918951-REG/tamron_14_150mm_f_3_5_5_8_di_iii.html/c/product/#inpage:IN+STOCK?gclid=CjkKEQjwlIqdBRDy6JSK4Lmn1akBEiQAVa9dPTxNBKHX0SpyS582SrT6Xmb8j2yawzmO4dqKwAPnF-3w_wcB
Within a few months …
Two words? You managed to spell one of them wrong….*too
I thought this was a rumor site, not online English lessons.
No, but it’s fun to correct. 😉
Why does everything have to be better & cheaper. It sounds like they have put some nice design into the lens elements with this lens & I’m interested to know how well it will perform, optical & focussing speed etc. If it’s good, then it shouldn’t be cheap.
Well not everybody is a native English speaker and little mistakes slip from time to time 🙂
The Tamron must be a lot better than the Olympus and Panasonic ones for us to think about it. No offense but the Panasonic 14-150mm has OIS and DFD for the GH4 (and all the cameras who will follow) etc.
I’m not saying the Tamron 14-150 may not be good or something, but it is very hard to compete with one Olympus and two Panasonic equivalent lenses, especially in the similar price range.
A similar situation happened with Tamron 24-70mm f/2,8 with VC, but that one had an unique selling point the VC, this one has none.
Agreed. Tamron and Sigma (except for Sigma’s new Art series lenses) have always thrived on giving you quality close to the equivalent lens from either Canon or Nikon, but at a much cheaper price. For example, the Sigma 17-50 2.8 with IS is like $550, whereas the Canon equivalent is $1,000. Here, it looks like Tamron is just putting out a lens at the same price as the major manufacturer (in this case, Olympus and Panasonic), so it had better be much better in the IQ department than what is already available.
I think they are just trying their luck. Tamron will quickly learn that just because it is m43, it doesn’t mean users will happily pay premium prices for all sorts of lenses. The price will drop as soon as the Panasonic comes out, or else their sales will drop (or worse, little sale at all). If they stuck to their strategy for Canon, they would succeed far better.
You have some writing mistakes in this paragraph. If you don’t completely know the English language you shouldn’t be so judgmental.
I have no interest on f/3.5-5.8 aperture at all… Small aperture is already a down side on MFT. Having almost like f/7-11.6 on full frame. Its pretty hard to get good “Bokeh”, But it is still a great travel lens 🙂
At the wide end, maybe, but at the 150mm end you’ll be getting plenty of blur whether you want it or not.
Depends on the subject distance and framing. Frame the same shot at different focal lengths (by moving yourself) and you’ll get the same blur at the same f-number. The reason you get more blur with a longer focal length is because you don’t move and you use the long focal length to crop your original shot in. In that case, at the same f-number you’re actually getting more blur, but it’s not the same shot anymore.
You can go out and try it, or you can watch a video that demonstrates this here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PTNiH7bdUI
Basically, you can’t count on a longer focal length to give you more blur given that the same shot is being taken. Only if you’re actually changing your framing will you get more blur. The effect is the same as simply getting closer to your subject or getting your subject to move further from the background.
Andrew is spot on!
No, not quite. You wouldn’t use a 300mm lens to do the same job of a 28mm or anything below 100mm for that matter.
He would only be right if you stood in the exact same position each time to take a photo of someone (for instance). But why would you want to do that? A 50mm at 8 feet would give you nice half portrait, a 300mm at 8 feet would give you just part of the head.
If you wanted a head and shoulders portrait with good blurry background you can still use the 300mm even at f8, and you’d get what you want.
The 1st and 3rd paras are correct, but the 2nd is not. You would use different lenses to take a shot of the same subject from the same spot because you want a different composition. For instance, 28mm at 10 feet would give a full body shot, while 300mm would give maybe head and shoulders or less but with more blur. Sometimes you have no choice when it is dictated by space — inside a restaurant or museum, for instance.
Origamy is correct. You will get the same blur at a given f-number on a given format regardless of the focal length if you recompose (move) to get the roughly same shot. You are changing your perspective, though. By moving farther away and using a long lens, you would have less background in the shot which may also help to isolate the subject. But you won’t have more blur unless you change the f-number.
Yeah, absolutely.
Obviously I’m not saying you can take the same shot with a longer focal length and get more blur. But it’s really difficult to take the same shot with a 14mm as a 150mm!
The blur depends both on subject distance as you say, but also the physical size of the aperture. Not just the aperture number. Fun fact: this is why larger formats have more blur for the same field of view and f number – because it requires a larger physical aperture to match the same f number with a longer focal length.
Long story short:
14mm/f3.5 = 4mm iris
140mm/f5.8 = 24mm iris
(for reference, 50mm/f2 = 25mm iris)
Exactly.
A superzoom is a travel/walkaround lens.
it covers the whole range from wide to tele – slap it on your camera, and go out – enjoy what you are doing, take pics from whatever jumps at you and don’t hassle with carrying plenty of stuff and changing lenses all the time.
It might not be your style or to your liking, but this is exactly what having a camera is all about TO ME.
Such a lens is always compromised – but despite this, and personally having much ‘better’ lenses (voigtlander, panaleica and more) this is the number one lens that I use the most. I first used the Oly 14-150, but when the Pana 14-140 II came out, I got that one, since it improves (slightly to considerably on some points) on IQ. Still compromised, but less so and I’m very happy with that. And if Tamron brings something new to the table, I do welcome it. Now, I’d rather have seen a different range, ex, 12-60, 12-100,… from Tamron, just to offer something new.
Ultimately, IQ is what will make this lens popular or not – compromised as it is. If the optical quality is a better compromise as what’s already out there – it will find its audience.
Finally, about aperture – my default aperture, outdoors, daytime, is ~ f/8 (and rarely outside f/5.6 – f/11) More often I want more in focus rather than less. So this lens matches that.
And when I need object separation, at the tele end there is a lot to be had, and even at the wide end, with care for distance (to subject, between subject and background) as well as colors and lighting – it is possible to do.
You realize on m43, most lenses start seeing a decline in IQ after 5.6 as diffraction begins to rear its ugly head. I’d only shoot f8 or higher if I needed a slow shutter speed for other effects. Otherwise, f5.6 and below.
diffraction is just one limiting factor – and its effects are gradual.
at what f-stop IQ peaks changes from lens to lens, as well as focal length used for a zoom. Fast primes (generally speaking) peak at larger apertures than slower zooms.
if these are to be believed – on the 14-140 II, f/8 is optimal – real decline in IQ is beyond f/11.
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/panasonic-lumix-g-vario-14-140mm-f-3-5-5-6-lens-review-22632#Performance
and I just prefer the more-in-focus look at f/8 over f/5.6 – again: for outdoors, daylight subjects.
I wish they would send better trolls over here. The ones we have are in a really sad state — they manage to create more converts TO m43 rather than make people leave the system.
For me, the only question is: How about image quality? I’d rather buy a slightly more bulky and even far more expensive superzoom like the Panasonic Leica Vario-Elmar 14-150mm f/3.5-5.6 for Four Thirds, than another mediocre MFT superzoom for $600 or even less.
Godammit Tamron, unless this is optically stupendous, there is literally no reason to buy this instead of the excellent Olympus or Panasonic alternatives for the same price.
Ironically, if they had simply released the new EOS-M 18-200 VC with an M4/3 mount for the same $499 price, they would likely find a lot more buyers, because that would have an interesting (and different) focal range on M4/3 as well as being usable on Panasonic bodies. I would be okay with only going to 35mm wide if I could go out to 400mm…
Stupid engineering and stupid marketing…
Where are you getting $499 from? At ~$250, this lens is half that price.
This lens is almost $600. The price quoted in the OP is way too low.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/918951-REG/tamron_14_150mm_f_3_5_5_8_di_iii.html/c/product/#inpage:IN+STOCK?gclid=CjkKEQjwlIqdBRDy6JSK4Lmn1akBEiQAVa9dPTxNBKHX0SpyS582SrT6Xmb8j2yawzmO4dqKwAPnF-3w_wcB
The eos-m lens is an aps-c lens, so it would still be an 28-300
Eh? The physical focal length of the lens doesn’t change just because you put a new mount on it.
I’m saying that Tamron should have released their APS-C superzoom as is on M4/3 instead of designing an M4/3 specific lens that no one wants. At least the APS-C lens would have an interesting focal length on M4/3 and would likely have good corner performance.
Sorry, long day, not enough sleep 🙂
Exactly. Sony/Canon APS-C 18-200mm is not that much bigger than m4/3 14-150mm. And we’d end up with better part of the glass :). Olympus did the same with 4/3 18-180mm lens ( APS-C Sigma rebadge if I’m right ).
If nothing else, this thing dropped the price of the Panasonic 14-140mm II to $629.99 at B&H!
Thanks Tamron!
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/968587-REG/panasonic_14_140mm_f_3_5_5_6_ois_micro.html
Nah, its been like that for a couple weeks, no thanks to Tamron.
But I agree. At a $40 difference the Panasonic is a complete no-brainer.
Tamron, please give us a 12-35mm f2-f4, like you do make to Canon. Something we can play with and pay about U$500!
There’s a big difference between $255 and $589
Price issue: reading Japanese info, it’s priced 65,000yen. about $600.
Stop buying third party products! These companies are parasites, stealing customers and money from the camera manufacturers. Make your own cameras if you want to be in this business, Tamron! You let others spend resources on developing cameras, then you sell your own products to their customers. STOP THE MADNESS!!! APOLOGISE!!!
Buy tyres from car manufacturer!
To Good Yeah,
Perfect logic!
There is a big difference. Micro Four Thirds is a standard which has multiple member companies (http://www.four-thirds.org/en/contact/group.html) who are all making products that benefit each other by adding more options to the eco system. There are official specifications for auto-focus, aperture settings and so on that makes the lenses compatible with the bodies. This is in big contrast to e.g. Canon’s EF mount which they don’t license at all, so lens manufacturers companies (e.g. Sigma, Tamron, Tokina etc.) have to rely on reverse-engineering to get their lenses to work on Canon bodies, and cannot guarantee that their lenses will work if Canon updates their firmware. There is no need to apologise if you are an official Micro Four Thirds member making Micro Four Thirds products, be it lenses only (Tamron, Sigma) or cameras only (Blackmagic Design) or both (Olympus, Panasonic). In fact, I would rather see more companies focusing on lenses!
Riiiiight… since when is competition ever a good thing? much prefer a monopoly… /facepalm
Never forget your meds. There are timetables for a reason.
for 200eur I maybe …maybe will consider to buy it..but 600 ???
never…rather keep walking with pair of primes …eg 14mm & 45mm
no reason for 3 same lenses…wasted R&D Tamron
Lot of people prematurely complain about the f3.5-5.8 range. Well I have this on the olympus 40-150 mft zoom lens and it is operating far above averange relating to the speed of focussing and getting sharp images at the far end! Could be due to the E-M5 body though. Eventually this lens is far below 200 euros now.
Lets wait for the reviews.
14-150 is very very welcome, indeed if it performs alike the 40-150mm.
Just saying
I think it’s sad that they removed the image stabilisation! Even if Panasonic decides to go with IBIS in the future I doubt they will catch up to the IBIS performance of Olympus in quite a while. In the meantime there are a lot of owners of current Panasonic bodies as well as us Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera users that would much prefer if IS (VC) was included. Tamron does really good work on their stabilisation on their APS-C lenses so they could also challenge Panasonic. I would have liked to have more competition from Tamron, but for me this lens is now out of the question so I caved in and just got the Panasonic 14-140/3.5-5.6 OIS instead. Does anyone know if there are other Tamron m4/3 lenses planned?