TDP Review of the Tamron 35mm f/1.8 Di VC

[ahsanford]

Senor Carnathan's latest review:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-35mm-f-1.8-Di-VC-USD-Lens.aspx

Sadly, the AF was sufficiently inconsistent to warrant the 'let me show you what I mean' mouseover example a la his Sigma 50 Art review.

"Going hand in hand with the image quality delivered by a lens is AF accuracy (unless using MF of course). Testing AF accuracy with this lens has driven me a bit crazy. Just when I was ready to declare it mostly very good, I would get a set of test results with the plane of sharp focus landing all over the place. Mostly, both the center and the peripheral AF points I tested worked reasonably well, but sometimes, the results were confusingly off the mark."

The damning bit is the birdhouse mouseover example. Just about in the middle of the page -- check it out.

For me, reliable/consistent/accurate AF is vital. Inconsistent AF on a larger aperture lens renders it DOA to me, regardless of it's features, IQ, etc. So, no thank you, Tamron.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Timing is everything, it would appear. 2-3 years ago, Tamron would have gobbled all sorts of business with this lens. Now there are three stellar 35mm AF lens performers in the space for different needs -- the two Canon lenses and the Sigma Art.

- A

 

[dadgummit]

I purchased the Tamron 70-300 VC back when it first came out and received the same AF results. 80% of the time it was perfect but the remaining were all over the place. That combined with playing the Sigma Lottery several times has pretty much scared me away from this latest batch of lenses.

Though I have to say the sigma dock is making me think I may give them a try again since canon does not seem willing to put out a good 50mm (good background blur with fast focus no focus shift).

 

[sanj]

It seems like the IQ difference between similarly priced third party and Canon lenses is reducing every year. 5 years ago Tamron and Sigma found it difficult (generally) to compete with Canon.

 

[ahsanford]

Though I have to say the sigma dock is making me think I may give them a try again since canon does not seem willing to put out a good 50mm (good background blur with fast focus no focus shift).

Tamron should have just skipped the 35mm, made a 50mm and called it good. At 35mm, the high end and the value end is completely covered by competitive products, but at 50mm, we still are waiting for great IQ with reliable AF. They'd have made a mint if they pulled that off.

- A

 

[Luds34]

Though I have to say the sigma dock is making me think I may give them a try again since canon does not seem willing to put out a good 50mm (good background blur with fast focus no focus shift).

Tamron should have just skipped the 35mm, made a 50mm and called it good. At 35mm, the high end and the value end is completely covered by competitive products, but at 50mm, we still are waiting for great IQ with reliable AF. They'd have made a mint if they pulled that off.

- A

Which brings up an interesting question that has baffled me. How did Sigma get reliable AF right on the 35 but fail on the 50?

 

[ahsanford]

Though I have to say the sigma dock is making me think I may give them a try again since canon does not seem willing to put out a good 50mm (good background blur with fast focus no focus shift).

Tamron should have just skipped the 35mm, made a 50mm and called it good. At 35mm, the high end and the value end is completely covered by competitive products, but at 50mm, we still are waiting for great IQ with reliable AF. They'd have made a mint if they pulled that off.

- A

Which brings up an interesting question that has baffled me. How did Sigma get reliable AF right on the 35 but fail on the 50?

TDP's Bryan Carnathan may not have condemned the 35mm, but my hit rate with the 35 Art at f/1.4 was abysmal, even with very careful (though handheld) technique. I had a similar inconsistent AF problem like he had with the 50.

My guess would be the 50 frustrated him enough to write about it, but the 35 didn't. Some have argued it's a copy to copy issue... so perhaps he had a good copy of the 35?

- A

 

[keriboi]

It seems like the IQ difference between similarly priced third party and Canon lenses is reducing every year. 5 years ago Tamron and Sigma found it difficult (generally) to compete with Canon.

That is because IQ is now near the limit. Its not going to get much better. Its the other techs like IS , DO and Blue coats that will improve quality. Canon will lead with these.

 

[Orangutan]

Can someone explain how the lens can have poor AF? I was under then impression that the body determines where to set the focus, and the lens merely follows direction. How hard can it be for a lens to obey the command "set your focus the this point?"

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Bryan's findings are interesting to me, as I had nearly perfect AF results with my own copy of the Tamron. Copy variation?

P.S. I've read a number of other reviews and don't recall anyone else calling this out as an issue.

 

[Europa--JDM]

I have tried 2 copies ( 45mm 1.8 ), and the AF consistency/accuracy is FAR worse than the new 50 1.8 from Canon. The Canon is worth over $1000 to me in terms of this (relatively speaking). It's a real shame.

It's really hard to justify keeping the lens, despite the great optics.

 

[ahsanford]

I have tried 2 copies ( 45mm 1.8 ), and the AF consistency/accuracy is FAR worse than the new 50 1.8 from Canon. The Canon is worth over $1000 to me in terms of this (relatively speaking). It's a real shame.

It's really hard to justify keeping the lens, despite the great optics.

Yep. Inconsistent AF is effectively worth the same as MF to me.

I can tolerate slow and/or noisy focusing if the lens is truly sharp, but inconsistent AF is a nonstarter for me.

- A

 

[LSXPhotog]

I personally had very inconsistent auto focus performance on my Sigma Art 50 on the 7D Mark II. This could have been my early struggles with autofocus on the body that saw it go back to Canon for calibration.

But, on my 6D, the results were almost spot on especially after adjustments using the Sigma dock. On my 5D Mark III, in body AFMA adjustment has proven to be quite reliable. I am honestly seeing accurate auto focus even in low light at a very respectable number. Enough to consider it very reliable.

I'm sure the Tamron will suffer from similar struggles. A copy-to-copy variation and differing performance on various bodies will start to trickle out.

 

[Europa--JDM]

I have tried 2 copies ( 45mm 1.8 ), and the AF consistency/accuracy is FAR worse than the new 50 1.8 from Canon. The Canon is worth over $1000 to me in terms of this (relatively speaking). It's a real shame.

It's really hard to justify keeping the lens, despite the great optics.

Yep. Inconsistent AF is effectively worth the same as MF to me.

I can tolerate slow and/or noisy focusing if the lens is truly sharp, but inconsistent AF is a nonstarter for me.

- A

Thank you!!!

PS: I should say that Live View focusing accuracy is PERFECT, but it's no way to shoot on most DLSRs (super slow on 6D). I got some incredible images using Live View wide open, but it's a hack.

 

[FramerMCB]

Bryan's findings are interesting to me, as I had nearly perfect AF results with my own copy of the Tamron. Copy variation?

P.S. I've read a number of other reviews and don't recall anyone else calling this out as an issue.

My guess Dustin is this, and it's only a guess, is that you are reviewing and testing these lenses on bodies with relatively simple autofocus systems (the 6D and possibly the 70D), Bryan is doing most of his testing with either a 5D Mk III or 1Ds Mk IV, or possibly even a 1DX. These bodies have far more complex focusing systems in them. Which, to my mind would in some instances require factory calibration/tuning to get the body/lens combo synced up accurately. As Sigma and Tamron, and any other 3rd-party lens manufacturer have to reverse engineer their autofocus capabilities of their lenses to work with Canon gear. And Canon, is not going to make it easy for these other lens makers. Just my thoughts.

 

[StudentOfLight]

On the 5D-III for AI servo I had to set maximum focus priority on 1st and 2nd shot for continuous shooting. If not, my first shot would almost never be in focus. With faster focusing lenses I could leave the setting at balanced for 1st shot and focus-priority for 2nd shot. My hit rate is very good for outdoors. For indoors it feels slow to focus so I checked it against focus speed of the 135L and it is about the same. So can can hardly complain.

On my 6D I needed to use AFMA value of 4. Peripheral points can work well on high contrast textures in bright light, but in dim situations the performance is typical of the 6D, with peripheral AF points being thoroughly unimpressive.

I haven't used it much on the 60D, but so far no complaints.

 

[Luds34]

Though I have to say the sigma dock is making me think I may give them a try again since canon does not seem willing to put out a good 50mm (good background blur with fast focus no focus shift).

Tamron should have just skipped the 35mm, made a 50mm and called it good. At 35mm, the high end and the value end is completely covered by competitive products, but at 50mm, we still are waiting for great IQ with reliable AF. They'd have made a mint if they pulled that off.

- A

Which brings up an interesting question that has baffled me. How did Sigma get reliable AF right on the 35 but fail on the 50?

TDP's Bryan Carnathan may not have condemned the 35mm, but my hit rate with the 35 Art at f/1.4 was abysmal, even with very careful (though handheld) technique. I had a similar inconsistent AF problem like he had with the 50.

My guess would be the 50 frustrated him enough to write about it, but the 35 didn't. Some have argued it's a copy to copy issue... so perhaps he had a good copy of the 35?

- A

Possibly for sure.

However, even among these forums, and I know the sample size is only so large, we hear of numerous occasions/copies of the 50 Art focusing inconsistently. And based on the experience/reputation of these members we know it's not a simple lack of experience with narrow DOF or not AFMA their very wide aperture lens. On the flip side, I can't recall seeing such posts on the 35 Art.

In short, that has puzzled me.

 

[Luds34]

I personally had very inconsistent auto focus performance on my Sigma Art 50 on the 7D Mark II. This could have been my early struggles with autofocus on the body that saw it go back to Canon for calibration.

But, on my 6D, the results were almost spot on especially after adjustments using the Sigma dock. On my 5D Mark III, in body AFMA adjustment has proven to be quite reliable. I am honestly seeing accurate auto focus even in low light at a very respectable number. Enough to consider it very reliable.

That echo's my experience with the older Sigma 50 EX as well. I picked up a copy new last fall (so it should have their latest, greatest firmware). While it is a little slow to lock in focus, it is very consistent on my 6D. However, it seems to miss every so often on my 70D.

I just don't shoot the 70D ever. But I should toss the Sigma 35mm Art on their for a week and force myself to use it to see if it too is inconsistent on the 70D.

For what it is worth, I love the Sigma 35mm Art on my 6D. Have gotten some good shots in the short time I've owned it (a few months).

 

[siegsAR]

Though I have to say the sigma dock is making me think I may give them a try again since canon does not seem willing to put out a good 50mm (good background blur with fast focus no focus shift).

Tamron should have just skipped the 35mm, made a 50mm and called it good. At 35mm, the high end and the value end is completely covered by competitive products, but at 50mm, we still are waiting for great IQ with reliable AF. They'd have made a mint if they pulled that off.

- A

Which brings up an interesting question that has baffled me. How did Sigma get reliable AF right on the 35 but fail on the 50?

TDP's Bryan Carnathan may not have condemned the 35mm, but my hit rate with the 35 Art at f/1.4 was abysmal, even with very careful (though handheld) technique. I had a similar inconsistent AF problem like he had with the 50.

My guess would be the 50 frustrated him enough to write about it, but the 35 didn't. Some have argued it's a copy to copy issue... so perhaps he had a good copy of the 35?

- A

Possibly for sure.

However, even among these forums, and I know the sample size is only so large, we hear of numerous occasions/copies of the 50 Art focusing inconsistently. And based on the experience/reputation of these members we know it's not a simple lack of experience with narrow DOF or not AFMA their very wide aperture lens. On the flip side, I can't recall seeing such posts on the 35 Art.

In short, that has puzzled me.

Focal length might be a factor on focusing accuracy somehow? Now that would be bad if let's say on a 85mm Art, if they ever release one.

 

[TeT]

Bryan's findings are interesting to me, as I had nearly perfect AF results with my own copy of the Tamron. Copy variation?

P.S. I've read a number of other reviews and don't recall anyone else calling this out as an issue.

I duplicated Brian's test at 3 distances with my 6D (10 shots each distance) and had 2 focus misses from the 30 shots (and only one was enough of a miss to potentially scrap the shot)

I get more misses out in the wild, but my technique is usually crap not very well refined.

IMHO: non issue