First Review of New Tamron Prime Lenses

[Rudeofus]

A bold claim without hard measurements to back it up. And it even fitted an image stabilising unit in there too ???
As Kevin/LSXPhotog has already stated, the review even did not point out a single problem with the lens. Suspicious too.

I found it particularly amusing, how the review raved about corner to corner sharpness of these lenses, even on a full frame high megapixel 5Ds. This recent post shows MTF data, which tells a very different story, especially for the new 35mm lens.

 

[StudentOfLight]

A bold claim without hard measurements to back it up. And it even fitted an image stabilising unit in there too ???
As Kevin/LSXPhotog has already stated, the review even did not point out a single problem with the lens. Suspicious too.

I found it particularly amusing, how the review raved about corner to corner sharpness of these lenses, even on a full frame high megapixel 5Ds. This recent post shows MTF data, which tells a very different story, especially for the new 35mm lens.

Define acceptable sharpness

 

[Luds34]

I usually had sharp sequences when using Canon lenses while half of shots from Tamron were out of focus because Tamron was too slow to get/keep focus.

This is why I returned my 24-70VC Tamron lens after a few weeks shooting with it, it was great for still objects and a great price. but the VC acted a bit strange, when it would engage, and I found AF not very consistent with moving subjects.
(I have a 6 and 8 year old, and they don't stay still for very long)

I ended up getting the Canon 24-70II. Yes it's expensive, but it just works.

Yes, I've noticed that on the Tamron 150-600 as well. The VC engages in a odd, unpredictable delay. Well, unpredictable in that I have not quite figured out the quirks. I'm suspicious that BBF isn't helping either or something. I haven't used the lens enough to have it all figured out. So if I really want a high keeper rate (and if there is enough light) I just kick up the shutter speed and it works well.

I think the focus works very well! I at first thought the focus was missing on some shots, but when I saw other shots where it "missed really bad" and noticed it was camera shake motion blur I was able to realize it was the VC and not the focus.

Back to the 35mm comparison. Zoomed in on the tiny text on the side of the 5DsR box where you can go back and forth between the Tamron and the Sigma, the Tamron is clearly far, far, sharper then the Sigma. I can't imagine that the difference is this drastic. So I'm wondering if a soft/bad copy of the Sigma, or the focus was off. Were they focusing in live view at all?

 

[Luds34]

question I have to anyone familiar with Tamron lenses: does the focus ring rotate in the Canon direction or the Nikon direction?

Pretty sure it's the Nikon way. For sure the zoom is the "wrong" (Nikon) way. And I think focus is as well as if memory serves when I use to focus my old 17-50 manually for video I had to train my brain to go against its normal convention.

 

[StudentOfLight]

question I have to anyone familiar with Tamron lenses: does the focus ring rotate in the Canon direction or the Nikon direction?

Pretty sure it's the Nikon way. For sure the zoom is the "wrong" (Nikon) way. And I think focus is as well as if memory serves when I use to focus my old 17-50 manually for video I had to train my brain to go against its normal convention.

From the image infinity appears to be on the right hand side so the same as Canon.

 

[Rudeofus]

A bold claim without hard measurements to back it up. And it even fitted an image stabilising unit in there too ???
As Kevin/LSXPhotog has already stated, the review even did not point out a single problem with the lens. Suspicious too.

I found it particularly amusing, how the review raved about corner to corner sharpness of these lenses, even on a full frame high megapixel 5Ds. This recent post shows MTF data, which tells a very different story, especially for the new 35mm lens.

Define acceptable sharpness

A severe falloff of the MTF@10lpmm curve tow thirds towards the corner may be acceptable to many including myself, but I would definitely not call this corner to corner sharpness on a 5Ds. The lens may be ok, but the review sounds bogus, unless the author received a spectacular sample that outperformed the posted MTF curve by a wide margin.

 

[Luds34]

From the image infinity appears to be on the right hand side so the same as Canon.

Good catch. It would appear that they have "fixed" it from older lenses.

 

[StudentOfLight]

A bold claim without hard measurements to back it up. And it even fitted an image stabilising unit in there too ???
As Kevin/LSXPhotog has already stated, the review even did not point out a single problem with the lens. Suspicious too.

I found it particularly amusing, how the review raved about corner to corner sharpness of these lenses, even on a full frame high megapixel 5Ds. This recent post shows MTF data, which tells a very different story, especially for the new 35mm lens.

Define acceptable sharpness

A severe falloff of the MTF@10lpmm curve tow thirds towards the corner may be acceptable to many including myself, but I would definitely not call this corner to corner sharpness on a 5Ds. The lens may be ok, but the review sounds bogus, unless the author received a spectacular sample that outperformed the posted MTF curve by a wide margin.

Here is an article on Field Curvature:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/09/field-curvature-and-stopping-down

By comparing the Tamron and Sigma...
If you look at the yellow background flowers in the top right corner you'll see the Tamron is sharper than the Sigma (both being shot at the f/1.8 setting). If you look at the wood grain on the table towards the corners the sigma appears to have sharper foreground. The Sigma's sharper foreground and more blurred background points to field curvature towards the foreground. But from Lensrental measurements we know that the Sigma has incredible flatness of field. So isn't the logical conclusion then that the Tamron has strong field curvature towards the background like the current Canon 35mm f/1.4L?

My guess is that field curvature is what makes the chart look worse than the lens feels to perform in practice. Test charts are flat, the real world has depth and from looking at the photographer's portfolio, he shoots anything but flat subjects

 

[Rudeofus]

A bold claim without hard measurements to back it up. And it even fitted an image stabilising unit in there too ???
As Kevin/LSXPhotog has already stated, the review even did not point out a single problem with the lens. Suspicious too.

I found it particularly amusing, how the review raved about corner to corner sharpness of these lenses, even on a full frame high megapixel 5Ds. This recent post shows MTF data, which tells a very different story, especially for the new 35mm lens.

Define acceptable sharpness

A severe falloff of the MTF@10lpmm curve tow thirds towards the corner may be acceptable to many including myself, but I would definitely not call this corner to corner sharpness on a 5Ds. The lens may be ok, but the review sounds bogus, unless the author received a spectacular sample that outperformed the posted MTF curve by a wide margin.

Here is an article on Field Curvature:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/09/field-curvature-and-stopping-down

By comparing the Tamron and Sigma...
If you look at the yellow background flowers in the top right corner you'll see the Tamron is sharper than the Sigma (both being shot at the f/1.8 setting). If you look at the wood grain on the table towards the corners the sigma appears to have sharper foreground. The Sigma's sharper foreground and more blurred background points to field curvature towards the foreground. But from Lensrental measurements we know that the Sigma has incredible flatness of field. So isn't the logical conclusion then that the Tamron has strong field curvature towards the background like the current Canon 35mm f/1.4L?

My guess is that field curvature is what makes the chart look worse than the lens feels to perform in practice. Test charts are flat, the real world has depth and from looking at the photographer's portfolio, he shoots anything but flat subjects

That's a very plausible explanation for the discrepancy between review and published MTF chart. But how would this work in real world shots if you position your main subject matter on one side? What if field curvature is aperture dependent, like spherical aberrations in the 50L?

 

[StudentOfLight]

A bold claim without hard measurements to back it up. And it even fitted an image stabilising unit in there too ???
As Kevin/LSXPhotog has already stated, the review even did not point out a single problem with the lens. Suspicious too.

I found it particularly amusing, how the review raved about corner to corner sharpness of these lenses, even on a full frame high megapixel 5Ds. This recent post shows MTF data, which tells a very different story, especially for the new 35mm lens.

Define acceptable sharpness

A severe falloff of the MTF@10lpmm curve tow thirds towards the corner may be acceptable to many including myself, but I would definitely not call this corner to corner sharpness on a 5Ds. The lens may be ok, but the review sounds bogus, unless the author received a spectacular sample that outperformed the posted MTF curve by a wide margin.

Here is an article on Field Curvature:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/09/field-curvature-and-stopping-down

By comparing the Tamron and Sigma...
If you look at the yellow background flowers in the top right corner you'll see the Tamron is sharper than the Sigma (both being shot at the f/1.8 setting). If you look at the wood grain on the table towards the corners the sigma appears to have sharper foreground. The Sigma's sharper foreground and more blurred background points to field curvature towards the foreground. But from Lensrental measurements we know that the Sigma has incredible flatness of field. So isn't the logical conclusion then that the Tamron has strong field curvature towards the background like the current Canon 35mm f/1.4L?

My guess is that field curvature is what makes the chart look worse than the lens feels to perform in practice. Test charts are flat, the real world has depth and from looking at the photographer's portfolio, he shoots anything but flat subjects

That's a very plausible explanation for the discrepancy between review and published MTF chart. But how would this work in real world shots if you position your main subject matter on one side? What if field curvature is aperture dependent, like spherical aberrations in the 50L?

Hopefully Lensrentals will get ahold of a batch of lenses soon and run their battery of tests.

 

[kubelik]

From the image infinity appears to be on the right hand side so the same as Canon.

Studentoflight, thanks for that info! I feel silly now, honestly never thought to check by just looking at the focus distance window... but will do so in the future ;D

 

[drjlo]

Got my fingers crossed the Tamrons have less AF quirks than the Sigmas. If so, at these prices, game on 8)

 

[StudentOfLight]

Got my fingers crossed the Tamrons have less AF quirks than the Sigmas. If so, at these prices, game on 8)

AF accuracy has not really been an issue with my Tamron zooms. For me the difference in AF speed however is noticeable. The zooms appear to have a two-stage focus behavior.
1) Quick jump
2) Fine adjustment

My Canon L primes on the other hand just seem to go straight to where they need to in one clear movement. I'm hoping these Tamrons (being primes lenses) can behave like my Canon L primes with decisive AF drive performance.

My one conceptual concern is the close-focus design. While close focus is incredibly useful, I hope it doesn't compromise their general focus speed and behavior. My 100mm non-L macro and 135L for example at least have limit switches to prevent racking through the close-focus range. With close-focus excluded, they lock focus blindingly fast in the normal-infinity range. I'm hoping that since these Tamrons are wider-angle lenses (and not really macro lenses) that this will end up not really being an issue.

 

[andrewflo]

From the image infinity appears to be on the right hand side so the same as Canon.

Studentoflight, thanks for that info! I feel silly now, honestly never thought to check by just looking at the focus distance window... but will do so in the future ;D

Agreed great find! Just to confirm, I took a quick look at my SP 24-70 and it is indeed the opposite (infinity is to the left on the SP 24-70).

Would make shooting a mixed bag of Canon and Tamron lenses just a tiny bit more convenient if they all zoomed/focused in the same direction

 

[StudentOfLight]

The Digital Picture has uploaded crops of the SP 45mm f/1.8 VC taken on the 5Ds R. I've included a comparison with the Canon 35mm f/2 IS USM below as this appears to be the class of Canon lens that Tamron is targeting with these new-look VC primes:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1004&Camera=979&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=824&Sample=0&CameraComp=979&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
The 45mm has its flaws as discussed in various online reviews but puts in a pretty decent performance at maximum aperture. I'm looking forward to seeing how the 35mm performs. I'm ready to sell my 35L but not yet sure if I should go the Tamron route or the Canon 35L II route. :'(

 

[StudentOfLight]

After some nagging (from people like me) Roger at Lensrentals has tested the Tamron SP 35mm and 45mm f/1.8 VC USD lenses. Sample variation is very good for the 35mm and outstanding for the 45mm.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

After some nagging (from people like me) Roger at Lensrentals has tested the Tamron SP 35mm and 45mm f/1.8 VC USD lenses. Sample variation is very good for the 35mm and outstanding for the 45mm.

Interesting. Where did you get that information?

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Sorry, that last question was lazy. I checked out the site and here's the link:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/12/tamron-f1-8-vc-prime-lenses-sharpness-mtf-curves

Interesting stuff.

 

[Flamingtree]

I just picked up the new Tamron 35.

I was trying to decide between it and the Sigma 35 A. The two lenses are the same price in here in Australia. I went for the Tamron mainly because of the close focusing ability. To me IS vs f1.4 was even and weather sealing is not really an issue in Western Australia.

Its been really hot here in Perth (40 degrees C) for the last couple of days so haven't had much of a chance to run it through its paces apart from taking photos of the dog mooching around under the air conditioner.

This is my first non Canon lens. Based on my limited testing AF wise I would say its comparable to my canon lenses - on my 7D. So far so good.

 

[StudentOfLight]

More curious number popping out of DXO...

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Tamron-SP-45mm-F18-Di-VC-USD-Model-F013-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R-versus-Tamron-SP-45mm-F18-Di-VC-USD-Model-F013-Nikon__1594_1009_1595_0

Apparently the SP 45mm resolves more detail on a 36MP D800E than on a 50MP 5Ds-R.