Tamron filed a patent for a teleconverter with a built-in image stabilization. This will allow to add image stabilization to any existing/old lens by just adding this teleconverter. The teleconverter range was listed as x0.9 - x1.5. The patent describes also a switch that can turn on/off the image stabilization.
Update: this patent was filed back in 2001 and Nikon had a similar patent filed in 2002.
Related posts:
21 Comments
Oh good grief. Yet another product to fill a need no one has.
Hey Tamron! Teleconverters are primarily used on tripods. You know, the place where we turn off image stabilization.
If brains were gasoline, these guys couldn’t get an ants motorcycle halfway around a BB.
Tripods can’t stabilise when dynamically tracking the subject, such as birding, motorsports, sports, etc. Even if you’re shooting from a fixed head, not a Wimberley mount or a monopod, the slightest wind or vibration can have an effect on stability.
Don’t be so quick to put down smart people who do this for a living.
“smart people who do this for a living.”
BWHAHAHAHA! Did I slip and fall down the rabbit hole when I wasn’t looking? This is the camera industry we are talking about, an industry full of far more failed technical initiatives than successes.
Shot any APS film lately? Yeah, that was a brainstorm, let me tell you.
But hey, maybe Pentax could lead the way instead of Kodak. How about the (in)famous Auto 110, a system so pathetic that no one in the print industry will print anything bigger than a 5×7 from it? Yeah, that sucked, didn’t it? What’s funny is that Pentax now plans to resurrect that loser (because producing a multitude of suck images the first go round wasn’t sufficient) using a 1/2.33 sensor. The mind boggles.
Speaking of mind bogglingly idiotic decisions regarding sensors, how about Fuji? They had a bonafida hit with the F10/11/30 series and then promptly screwed it up. Are they even developing their own sensors anymore? Not if the X100 is any indication.
Don’t speak to me of the genius in the photography industry. We’ve spent almost 100 years hobbled by Barnanke’s idiotic decision concerning aspect ratio, and the rest of the industry hasn’t been much brighter.
Commiserations on your accident. I hope you are feeling better soon and and totally regain your faculties.
I shoot a lot of APS when the fancy takes me. I shoot the canon IXUS (which I can shoot all my EF lenses on), the Contax Tix (the world’s best APS compact), Canon IXUS 1013341 (my original/ flash problem), a IXUS X-1 waterproof at the pool/ beach (great optics), plus a bunch of junk mostly bought when APS was in or when it fell from favour and afterwards they kept falling in my lap almost for free like sitting in an orchard full of camera-trees. The junk includes a Leica C11, a bunch of IXUS/ELPH I’s and an Olympus iZOOM 2000. I have a cooler full of APS film, especially fine grained late vintage BW400CN. You can knock the format if you wish, but there are lots of good cameras going cheap.
I don’t have an Auto 110, but I like them and wouldn’t say no if you have a set going at a good price. I can still get 110 film and it’s a significant camera, as it represents the pinnacle of the 110 format.
Subminiature formats and small sensors have their uses. There is merit in the concept of a small, light and cheap system that does the job adequately. Some submin images are honestly not too far behind full frame as long as they are shot well through good glass and not pushed beyond the limits of the format. People don’t complain (often) about watching 20′ high movie screens projected through half frame movie stock, nor is it particularly apparent on TV monitors or Full HD TV screens, which is most many people view them. I also get pretty decent 4R prints too. I get great 15R prints from scanned 35mm film, so I suspect the submin formats are capable of more than 4R if you know what you’re doing.
Anyhow, we’re diverting from the topic. You say Tamron are a bunch of idiots. I don’t agree. I have tremendous respect for them. I think they are the best of the third party lens makers when it comes to long zooms. They have made some very good lenses as an OEM. They also know how to make a very reasonable quality cheap lenses , which they sell by the container load under their own brand. I have a few. They shoot well and produce crisp vibrant images.
You also say the concept sucks. Well, I own none of their VC lenses, so I can’t really opine on the value of this invention as a product, but conceptually, it would be good to be able to turn a non IS/VR lens into a stabilised lens. It would make financial and practical sense for someone who generally shoots unstabilised super-tele primes to be able to reach into the bag and pull out a teleconverter when the conditions demand it.
Typo: “I shoot the canon IXUS (which I can shoot all my EF lenses on)” was referring to the Canon EOS IX APS SLR.
PS/ John, I partly agree with your comment on the 3:2 35mm format. It was a practical and economic necessity at the time and I bet the great man would laugh at the idea of our using 36mm x 24mm format digital sensors so many decades later. Mind you, it’s easy to set a camera to shoot a cropped format or to crop in digital post processing, so I think it’s no big deal anymore.
THANK YOU!!!! IT’S ABOUT TIME SOMEBODY MADE THIS!
I’ve been saying this needs to be made for some time now.
–See below forum post for proof– :-p
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=1582
People told me I was crazy but I’ve been vindicated!!! Thank you Tamron. If only most of your products didn’t feel cheaply made and inferior to the big dogs.
That could give a new oportunity to my 80-200AFS, as it is an excellent lens but has no VR, and I use it handheld not with tripod.
the problem is you lose a stop of light. not a big fan of that. the 70-200mms will still prevail
Did you notice that this patent was granted in 2001? No such product has appeared on the market since.
I don’t mean to brag, but I thought of this like 15 years ago, was meaning to patent the idea but I’m not an engineer to effectively describe the workings on a blueprint. Although, if the above little “dancing graph” is their blueprint then I should shoot myself in the foot right now…
Especially on (older) long teles this is a great little gadget.
I thought of creating a radio controlled tank that could fly to the moon a few years back
except I’m not an engineer…so the patent never materialized
That’s nothing… in 1986, US defense appointed Lockheed Martin, McDonald Douglas and me to design the fighter that the F-22 Raptor has taken the role of. US defense was so impressed right after they saw my Forethought Presenter (now MS PowerPoint) presentation, they contracted me without even giving the other guys a turn. But back in 1986, I was only 4 years old and I was no qualified engineer to make the blueprints… reluctantly they gave the contract to Lockheed Martin. MDD thinks I voluntarily stepped down and they still send me nice hamper every Christmas because I “let” them stay in business.
+1.
Why the sarcasm? It’s not that funny…
“0.9x – 1.5x” ?
So somewhere between the wide-conversion (0.9x) and the tele-conversion (1.5x) point there’s a no-conversion/neutral (1x) point at which it’ll just work as a stabilisation module that’ll not change the perspective? Or does this only have only 2 settings?
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Make it stop!
It’s making me dizzy.
That sounds like Sigma ‘OS’ image stabilisation. I shoot better handheld at F=400mm with the OS off than on. ‘OS’ stands for “Optics Screwy”.
I’m talking about the damn graphic…
Well, if there’s no AF-S 300 F/4.0 VR in a few years, this baby would make many Nikonites happier! Now, the question would be the IQ….
Those patents were filed by Tamron ten years ago, in 2001. Its like a flashback made by the japanese blog (egami) that also include three Nikon patents filed in 2002 (Nikon Front Tele Converter with VR)
http://www.fotoactualidad.com/2011/02/el-tele-convertidor-estabilizado-de.html