Tamron 35mm f/1.8 / 45mm f/1.8

michaelg

michaelg

Messages
564
Name
Michael
Edit My Images
Yes
Has anyone bought either of these? If so, what do you think of it so far?

Just wondering if it's worth considering vs. Sigma 35mm ART since the VC should offset the difference in f-stops...
 
It certainly looks good from the photos I've seen so far via Flickr. I have Tamron's 24-70 VC and 70-200 VC and it works a treat there and some of the shutter speeds getting sharp shots on Flickr look impressive too. Tempted!
 
Looking at the reviews online, it seems that both the 35 and 45 are plagued a bit with chromatic aberration. Maybe I'll keep holding out for someone to decide to sell me their Sigma ART lenses in the meantime :)
 
michaelg said:
Looking at the reviews online, it seems that both the 35 and 45 are plagued a bit with chromatic aberration. Maybe I'll keep holding out for someone to decide to sell me their Sigma ART lenses in the meantime :)
Click to expand...

Problem is, they're just so big.

It's the only reason (that and the f/1.2) that I'd buy the Canon 50/1.2 over theirs.

I don't know why we can't have some decent primes that aren't the size of a 24-70 zoom. Probably the rear focusing group to keep movements entirely internal.
 
Last edited:
UKmitch86 said:
Problem is, they're just so big.

It's the only reason (that and the f/1.2) that I'd buy the Canon 50/1.2 over theirs.

I don't know why we can't have some decent primes that aren't the size of a 24-70 zoom. Probably the rear focusing group to stop to keep movements entirely internal.
Click to expand...

Yup, I know what you mean. Sadly Nikon don't have a 50mm f/1.2 currently and from what I understand, their f/1.8G is a bit sharper and has nicer bokeh than their f/1.4. I tried the 35mm f/1.4 which is excellent but so expensive and the f/1.8G I think is okay but not amazing. So it seems that the sigma seems to have the edge on both focal lengths.
 
michaelg said:
Yup, I know what you mean. Sadly Nikon don't have a 50mm f/1.2 currently and from what I understand, their f/1.8G is a bit sharper and has nicer bokeh than their f/1.4. I tried the 35mm f/1.4 which is excellent but so expensive and the f/1.8G I think is okay but not amazing. So it seems that the sigma seems to have the edge on both focal lengths.
Click to expand...

I had their 50/1.4 HSM but focus was so erratic you couldn't really trust it, nor could it be MFA'd. Still, it was well built and small enough. The colour was a nice warm render too. I'd probably give it another go, but would be frustrated if I got another that wouldn't focus properly.

Nikon do actually make a 50/1.2 - it's a manual one though!
 
UKmitch86 said:
I had their 50/1.4 HSM but focus was so erratic you couldn't really trust it, nor could it be MFA'd. Still, it was well built and small enough. The colour was a nice warm render too. I'd probably give it another go, but would be frustrated if I got another that wouldn't focus properly.

Nikon do actually make a 50/1.2 - it's a manual one though!
Click to expand...

Have tried 3 different Sigma 50mm arts on all 3 the focusing was awful even after mfa and using the Sigma dock. Pretty much everyone I know that has had one has had similar issues. Thankfully I fell lucky with the Siggy 35mm art and it doesn't have any issues but wouldn't consider another 50.
 
UKmitch86 said:
I had their 50/1.4 HSM but focus was so erratic you couldn't really trust it, nor could it be MFA'd. Still, it was well built and small enough. The colour was a nice warm render too. I'd probably give it another go, but would be frustrated if I got another that wouldn't focus properly.

Nikon do actually make a 50/1.2 - it's a manual one though!
Click to expand...
Yup I saw that. Not sure my eyesight is up to manual focus, and the picture quality on live view in low light doesn't help much either...

It's a wonder they haven't made any lenses that fast recently as I'm sure there is a market for them.
 
f/2.8 said:
Have tried 3 different Sigma 50mm arts on all 3 the focusing was awful even after mfa and using the Sigma dock. Pretty much everyone I know that has had one has had similar issues. Thankfully I fell lucky with the Siggy 35mm art and it doesn't have any issues but wouldn't consider another 50.
Click to expand...
Hmm that's a bit concerning. Was that recently? Wonder if they ironed out the quality issues yet...
michaelg said:
Yup I saw that. Not sure my eyesight is up to manual focus, and the picture quality on live view in low light doesn't help much either...

It's a wonder they haven't made any lenses that fast recently as I'm sure there is a market for them.
Click to expand...
 
UKmitch86 said:
Problem is, they're just so big.

It's the only reason (that and the f/1.2) that I'd buy the Canon 50/1.2 over theirs.

I don't know why we can't have some decent primes that aren't the size of a 24-70 zoom. Probably the rear focusing group to keep movements entirely internal.
Click to expand...

Because people pixel peep on screen at 300% and expect perfection, ditto across the frame sharpness wide open?

There are reasons why the best modern lenses are better then their older equivalents and those reasons may well include all that big heavy specialised glass and beefier AF motors to move it all about which make the lenses bigger and heavier. Look at the widely regarded as excellent Zeiss Otis lenses, they're big and they're not even AF :D

These days I have the excellent Zeiss 55mm f1.8 which is not too chunky but that can't be used on DSLR's. Back when I had DSLR's I had the non Art Sigma 50mm f1.4, that's a good lens and smaller than the newer Art.
 
Last edited:
f/2.8 said:
Bought the last one and returned again just before Christmas.
Click to expand...
Hmm, maybe I'll steer clear of that one then. I think I'd prefer the 35 anyway actually. I had the Nikon 35mm f/1.4 on loan and got lots of nice shots with it so I think it suits my current circumstances a bit better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top