Cory said:
For a nice option to sit in between an UWA and an 85mm lens would there be a winner among the Sigma 35 Art, Tamron 35 and Tamron 45 (on a Canon crop)?
67mm threads are a bonus (hence including these) and I really do like that Sigma "contrasty" look (which the Tamrons seem to have as well). Not a fan of a lot of CA even though easily removed, but still.
Leaning towards the Sigma, but figured I'd do a tiny bit more agonizing.
Thanks.
My thought process:
1) Nail down the FL you really want for your needs. I've seen 'paired prime' arguments for a 24 and 50, 35 and 85, etc. -- just pick the one you need. (35 and 45 are different animals to me, btw)
2a) Presuming it's 35...
Best = Dustin is correct in that the 35L II is the best tool out there. I'm oversimplifying, but the 35L II is effectively the 35mm Art
with near-flawless first party autofocus. The 35 Art is optically stellar but has -- to a varying degree -- been plagued with the Sigma 'inconsistent AF' problem which cannot be corrected in their USB dock, which may / may not be a major problem for how/what you shoot.
Best value = Toss up between the Sigma 35mm Art and the Canon non-L 35mm f/2 IS USM. The Sigma's sharpness per dollar value proposition is off the charts, but it's relatively large/heavy and the AF is a wildcard. The Canon is small and unassuming (better for street, candids, etc.), packs IS and (critically) has fast/reliable/consistent AF. However, you do lose a stop with the f/2 design.
Best Budget value = Get a Canon pancake that works on your mount, either the 22 f/2 STM for EF-M, the 24 f/2.8 STM for EF-S or the 40mm f/2.8 STM for EF. The 40 is the least desirable for FOV reasons if you are gunning for a 35mm lens, but it's your only option on a FF rig. All three of these lenses are staggeringly sharp for what you pay, but know that some larger lens creature comforts (focus scale, solid hood attachment, common filter diameter with your other lenses, fast AF) will not be there for you.
Avoid = Tamron 35mm f/1.8 VC. I don't say avoid it like it's a poor product -- far from it (it's quite sharp!). But why you'd pay the same money and get this instead of such a solid first party Canon option is utterly beyond me. A fraction of a stop quicker and a hair sharper wide open is not remotely worth walking away from first party AF, IMHO, but you may feel differently.
2b) Presuming it's 45mm (let's say 45-50):
If you need IS, the Tamron is the only option. (Unlike the 35mm space which is a hornet's nest of recent very good lens releases, Tamron has some open water here and should sell well.)
If you don't need IS, that's a very long thread. There is a clown car full of non-IS 50s to choose from, and all of them have drawbacks. There is no 9/10 at everything 50mm lens, so you usually end up choosing the one with the drawback that angers you the least.
- A