Seizing the opportunity of a visit to Tamron’s plant in Foshan, China, in this blog series I have written about what I feel and think about the interchangeable lenses of Tamron, revolving around a number of themes. This is the tenth and final blog in this series.

   Tamron produces interchangeable lenses not only in Japan (at the plants in Aomori) but also overseas (at the plant in China and the plant in Vietnam). In terms of the quality and performance of the interchangeable lenses produced in any of these plants, the standards specified by the Tamron Head Office are rigorously observed. This means that there is no difference in quality or performance based on the area where a product is manufactured, and this is why Tamron people say that all of their lenses are “MADE IN TAMRON.”

   I hope that by reading this blog, many of you have caught on to the fact that Tamron produces very good lenses with consistent quality and outstanding performance, and that the company makes continuous efforts to create even better lenses.
   “But,” you may ask, “what specific conditions does a lens need to satisfy for it to be considered a very good lens?” Or the question may be, “What does Tamron place importance on when designing, developing and producing its lenses?” I will present my answers to these questions as follows. Although they may contain points that are biased by my own standards for evaluation, I believe that they are not far off the “ideal lens” that Tamron envisions.

<Essential conditions for a good lens (My own standards for evaluating a lens)>

① Appropriate contrast (stereoscopic feel, crystal clear quality)
② Refined sharpness (resolving power, crispness)
③ Rich gradations (depictive quality for tones and gradations)
④ Accurate color reproducibility without any blurs (neutral and clear reproduction of color tones)
⑤ Backlit performance characteristics (corrected flare and ghosting)
⑥ Accurate image symmetry (little distortion or deformation)
⑦ Background blur effects that are subtle in nature (softness, clarity of colors)
⑧ Operability (functions, size and weight, tactile feedback of zoom ring and focus ring)
⑨ Durability (robust, dust-proof, moisture-proof)
⑩ Price (reasonable, value for money)

   The ten conditions listed above are the basic conditions based on which I ordinarily evaluate lenses myself. A little unevenness is OK, as a lens can be stronger in some aspects and weaker in others, but if I were to choose a lens, it would not be allowed to lack any of these qualities. Ideally, it would be best if a lens satisfied all of these ten conditions evenly in a well-balanced manner.
   For example, there may be a lens with extraordinary sharpness (resolving power), but its tendency toward strong contrast could sacrifice the depictive quality for tones and gradations a little. At a glance, the lens appears to produce powerful and attractive images, but it has characteristics that are a little too strong. I do not give very high marks to such lenses, calling them “lenses that are too self-assertive.”

   How about Tamron’s interchangeable lenses in this regard, then?
   They adequately meet all of the ten conditions above, but to be frank, many of their lenses make a rather subdued impression. Well, I’d rather rephrase it this way: They are lenses that make the impression of being reserved, modest and unobtrusive.
   In contrast to the depictive characteristics of lenses that seem to be in vogue right now that are more self-assertive in nature, as if saying, “Hey, look at me! I’m magnificent, I’m gorgeous, aren’t I?”, asserting themselves in this way does not seem to be an aspect of the Tamron lenses’ character. I rather like Tamron’s approach of preferring to be used by people who appreciate what the true performance of a lens is, and I believe that this is a very good approach.
   Why? Thinking about what the characteristics of a digital camera are could perhaps give us an answer.
 

   Rapid improvements in the image quality of digital cameras are now ongoing, largely thanks to the higher pixel density, the larger size of the image sensors and progress in image processing technologies. What is now required of lenses is that, in combination with the latest digital cameras, they can give full play to the lens’ own depictive quality while also placing importance on the camera’s basic direction for picture-taking.

   If the lens’ own character is too strong, it runs the risk of making a mess of the camera’s own picture-taking aims. If the lens is too self-assertive, trying to go back a little to a more neutral state may result in image processing that is unnatural. The more neutral and flexible the depictive quality of a lens is, the easier it will be for the camera side to properly control the picture-making characteristics.
   With a depictive quality that places importance on the raw images with a rather reserved character, simply adjusting the contrast and sharpness in optimum ways will enable you to create images without undermining the basic picture quality at all. I believe that this is what Tamron’s philosophy regarding the lens’ depictive quality is all about.

   If we give it some thought for a moment, it is quite obvious that Tamron’s interchangeable lenses are not made to be a good match only for the digital cameras of a particular manufacturer. There is clearly great care and attention to detail here, so that even in combination with the digital camera of a camera manufacturer that may have a different approach to picture-taking characteristics, the lens can maximize its own depictive performance without needing to assert itself.
   I believe this is a very important point for a lens manufacturer like Tamron that creates general-purpose interchangeable lenses. If you are using a film camera, for example, and you find that the camera works well with a certain film, but that using another film doesn’t give you the expected image quality, or you find that the camera is good for color photos, but not good at all for monochrome photos; similarly, an interchangeable lens that is like such a film camera could give you a lot of problems along the way.
 

   For a camera manufacturer that produces both digital cameras and interchangeable lenses as a set, so to speak, optimizing a camera’s picture-taking qualities in accordance with a lens’ depictive characteristics (including its peculiarities and shortcomings) could be one of its possible options. It is thanks to the benefits of such technologies that it would be possible to easily compensate for distortions and chromatic aberrations.
   However, this applies only to that camera manufacturer’s own interchangeable lenses, and generally, the interchangeable lenses of other companies (manufacturers of general-purpose interchangeable lenses like Tamron) cannot benefit from such automatic compensation for the aberrations through image processing. The only way forward would be to continue creating lenses that boast excellent depictive quality based on an approach that is simple and honest, with care and attention to the fine details. It is naturally crucial to achieve image quality that is at above-normal levels in combination with any kind of camera body, but it will also be necessary to ensure that there is no awkward feel in terms of the weight balance for the combined camera and lens, and for all of the operations.

   This is something that a general-purpose lens manufacturer like Tamron is destined to achieve, and that is, in fact, all the more reason to prefer a interchangeable lens that is flexible while ensuring that the basic depictive qualities like Tamron’s interchangeable lenses are achieved without fail (even if with a character that is a little reserved), rather than more self-assertive and stubborn interchangeable lenses, in my view.

   Now, I wonder whether you are familiar with the term “computational photography.”
   This is a new type of photography that makes extensive use of computers. It is actually possible to describe the latest digital cameras as having a computer inside them, and aside from creating photographic images in novel ways, photographic technologies that encompass the image sensors, the image processing technologies and the lens as one whole integrated unit and that make up for any shortcomings or weaknesses in each of these areas with a comprehensive approach to create ideal images are now seemingly just around the corner.
   In the near future, it will be quite easy to use a built-in high-performance computer inside a camera to compensate for any aberrations of a lens (in fact, it is already being done right now). Looking further ahead, it may even be possible in the future to compensate for focusing-related issues and control the character of background blur effects.

   However, regardless of how much progress may be achieved in computational photography, the basic role of a lens will remain unchanged. The basic principle of a lens is that it should faithfully deliver the light and its expressions to the camera without adding any unnecessary touches.
   How much electronization and computerization could be in store for digital cameras going forward is simply beyond my imagination at this point, but what I can easily imagine for photographic lenses is that its manufacturing methods and roles will not change all that much compared to now. Meticulously grinding and polishing each of the lens elements, accurately fitting them in a barrel, and creating lenses that independently give full play to superb depictive quality and performance without any help or assistance from external gizmos… Such lens manufacturers and such lenses will undoubtedly survive and be highly valued by users.

   In this light, what I described as the philosophy underlying the depictive quality of Tamron’s interchangeable lenses in blog No.3 of this series may in fact be an insightful vision that looks ahead to the future of digital cameras as well as observing the current conditions for digital cameras, as Tamron continues focusing on the vital aspects when designing and manufacturing each of its lenses.

   I would like to thank you for reading this series of long blog articles.
   Instead of the rather “reticent” Tamron, I attempted to provide explanations, which were perhaps a little tedious, and so this has turned into a very long article series.
   Still, I would be very happy if reading this blog has helped you, even in a small way, to get a handle on the virtues and wonderful qualities of Tamron lenses.