First Review of New Tamron Prime Lenses

[Canon Rumors]

Tamron recently announced two new prime lenses, a 35mm f/1.8 VC and a 45mm f/1.8 VC, both lenses are full frame compatible. Krolop & Gerst put the new lenses through their paces with a very extensive review with a lot of image samples and direct comparisons to the Sigma and Canon offerings that are around the same price.</p>
<p>All of the sample images in the review were shot with the Canon EOS 5DS R, and you’ll see the Tamron lenses mate very well with Canon’s most detailed oriented, full frame camera.</p>
<p><strong>35mm & 45mm, why?</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>35mm and 45mm seem to lie very close together, maybe too close? The decision for these two focal lenghts raised more than a few eyebrows… when do I use which lens and why? Well, the answer to that is quite simple. The 35mm lens clearly has the look of a wide angle lens while the 45mm has the look of a standard lens. Whoever wants to be where the action is should decide for the 35mm (which is more suitable for APS-C cameras as well, as the 45mm lens is too long for most „everyday scenes“) – BUT – if you like taking portraits on an APS-C camera, the 45mm is nearly perfect though… <a href="http://blog.krolop-gerst.com/technik/review-tamron-sp-35mm-45mm-f1-8-di-vc-usd-english/" target="_blank">Read the full review</a></p></blockquote>
<p>Both lenses are set to begin shipping at the end of September 2015.</p>
<ul>
<li>Tamron SP 35mm f/1.8 Di VC USD <a href="http://www.adorama.com/TM3518EOS.html&KBID=64393" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Adorama </a>| <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1183045-REG/tamron_aff012c700_sp_35mm_f_1_8_di.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://amzn.to/1PMU59p" target="_blank">Amazon</a></li>
<li>Tamron SP 45mm f/1.8 Di VC USD <a href="http://www.adorama.com/TM4518EOS.html&KBID=64393" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Adorama </a>| <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1183050-REG/tamron_aff013c700_sp_45mm_f_1_8_di.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://amzn.to/1LWvXmY" target="_blank">Amazon</a></li>
</ul>
<p> </p>

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

I would love to know if these work well with the C100 DPAF. I like to shoot handheld with fast primes and have always wanted something with IS/VC. The Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC is very finicky, unfortunately - not enough to trust. The Sigma arts work fine with DPAF....If these new tamrons can work with DPAF they are an instant buy for me.

 

[StudentOfLight]

My excitement for these lenses just doubled.

 

[MintChocs]

Who needs L when it's sharp wide open, has stabilisation. Win, win!

 

[scyrene]

I welcome these, but having bought the Canon 35 f/2 IS this year, I won't be queuing up I'm afraid. It's good to see more lenses combining wide aperture and IS though - really useful for dimly lit events!

 

[Peerke]

Looking at the pictures of the Canon, Tamron and Sigma, I can't help thinking this is not a very good test. First I ask myself why they use stabilisation when using a tripod? Second, the yellow can on the right side is very sharp in the canon picture, so if that is where the focal point is, the canon wins all the way.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Frankly this was far more inspiring than the sample images I saw from New York previously. The image quality looked very impressive in this review. No mention of focus speed/accuracy. That's something I will be looking closely in my review, because few people complain about the image quality from the Sigma ART 35 or 50, but many of us have complained about less than accurate (or consistent) AF performance. I've had good success with the Tamron lenses that I own, and I hope these will be no exception.

I should have them in a couple of weeks for review.

 

[LSXPhotog]

Showing sharper results than the Sigma stopped down? Similar flare resistance? Hmmmmm.... I'd have to see more results confirming this. If true, that's extremely impressive.

But, I have a hard time believing any review that has nothing negative to take away from a review period.

 

[switters]

I'm definitely interested... but have to say I would have been even more interested had they chosen 55mm instead of 45mm for the normal lens. When I was using 35mm on APS-C 1.6x I found 56mm FOV to be great for shooting people.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I'm definitely interested... but have to say I would have been even more interested had they chosen 55mm instead of 45mm for the normal lens. When I was using 35mm on APS-C 1.6x I found 56mm FOV to be great for shooting people.

Me, too. 55mm f/1.8 would have been VERY interesting to me. Tamron tells me that more primes are coming, but these first two share a 67mm front element (and probably a number of design similarities), which helps minimize engineering costs.

Now when the 85mm comes (assuming that it does), I will be very, very interested.

 

[ScottyP]

35 and 45 kind of means they will have few customers who will pick up both because they are so very close. Had they spread them out better, they could expect to have lots of happy customers picking them both up. Why not 35 and 85? Or 24 and 50? Even 35 and 50 would tempt multiple purchases assuming they are good lenses.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

Frankly this was far more inspiring than the sample images I saw from New York previously. The image quality looked very impressive in this review. No mention of focus speed/accuracy. That's something I will be looking closely in my review, because few people complain about the image quality from the Sigma ART 35 or 50, but many of us have complained about less than accurate (or consistent) AF performance. I've had good success with the Tamron lenses that I own, and I hope these will be no exception.

I should have them in a couple of weeks for review.

Please add to your review the Canon 35mm f/2 IS, which I consider a very good lens. I have also considered the 35A but, in terms of weight and size I prefer the Canon one. Now, we have Tamron in the game

 

[grainier]

I did not read the review, but I ctr+F'd through it to see if the talk about AF speed.

 

[StudentOfLight]

I wonder if the next one will be a 90mm f/1.8.

 

[StudentOfLight]

Looking at the pictures of the Canon, Tamron and Sigma, I can't help thinking this is not a very good test. First I ask myself why they use stabilisation when using a tripod? Second, the yellow can on the right side is very sharp in the canon picture, so if that is where the focal point is, the canon wins all the way.

Sure, the one item way off on the right hand side is what they focused on...

Field curvature is at play in this test and the 35 IS was tested at f/2 so there is perhaps a tiny bit more depth of field and sharpness which the Tamron and Sigma would be sacrificing to 35 IS. Looking at the peripheral area of the image is not going to give you a fair comparison especially at maximum aperture.

The one thing I noticed is that the Canon 35 IS appears to have a slightly wider angle of view than the other two lenses at the focus distance that those comparison shots were taken at. I assume the Tamron will have some focus breathing and widen more as you get into the close focus ranges.

Anyway I think the big take away from the comparison is that the Tamron is at the very least running with the best of them in terms of sharpness and clearly leading the pack in terms of low vignette (the corners are more than a stop brighter than the other lenses). Will be good to see some comprehensive AF tests to reinforce my positive first impressions.

 

[mdflare]

I am a bit skeptical on all the claims the lens should have accomplished.
I would be all in for all this to be confirmed, but ...

It seems to me the test claims that Tamron has secretly found THE holy grail in a fairly deep explored range of lenses that no other should have found before. Zeiss,Canon,Sigma,Nikon,Samyang,...
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.

Comparing to the Sigma A35mm.
It is ~180g lighter than the Sigma. It is slower 1.8 vs. 1.4. And now the Tamron claims to be:
-sharper then the sigma stopped down to 1.8
-has low vigneting despite the difference in weight
and
-"Extremely high corner performance – sharp images even at the outer edges" (without comparison)
-despite the difference in weight it has an image stabilizing unit on top (more weight that is not glass)

I have trouble believing these claims out of 1 review without any negative point. The Test explicitly has no measurements to back it up. Without Measurements it isn´t possible to say if this is the worst copy of a sigma 35 compared to a maybe best of a new Tamron. This does not negate the Impression the Test might suggest, but it has no calibrated Data to back it up.
Lets wait at for at least a second look before hopping on the party-train.

 

[Ladislav]

I'm not so rich to buy a cheap product. Except this one is even not cheap.

Images look very good but they are all still. I'm afraid of its AF servo performance.

I was recently taking pictures of London's Notting Hill Carnival. I spent two days using 6D with AF servo and continuous shooting + Tamron 24-70/2.8 SP VC, Canon 50/1.8 STM, Canon 100/2.8 L IS. My settings was most of the time Manual set to: f2.8 (f2.0 on 50/1.8), 1/320, Auto ISO.

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 wasn't the first event when the Tamron failed me. I like the lens when used with one shot AF but it has too many limitations when your subject is not still. It was surprising for me to find out that STM lens beats Tamron's AF quality a big time.

Since I bought Tamron I'm still thinking about replacing it with Canon. It is twice as much expensive and doesn't have IS (that's the main reason why I haven't go for it yet because it is handy for still and landscape photography which I do more often) but if I didn't go with Tamron in the first place, it would cost me less (as I will never get back full amount I invested to Tamron) and I wouldn't lose many good moments just because AF went wrong. Thus the initial statement ...

 

[DomTomLondon]

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.

 

[jd7]

I'm definitely interested... but have to say I would have been even more interested had they chosen 55mm instead of 45mm for the normal lens. When I was using 35mm on APS-C 1.6x I found 56mm FOV to be great for shooting people.

Me, too. 55mm f/1.8 would have been VERY interesting to me.

+1. I'd have been more interested in 55mm too, or even just a 50.

That said, I'm not sold on f/1.8 at these focal lengths. I have the canon 35/2 IS as a small, light prime, but otherwise if I'm going to get a prime at that sort of focal length I'm really looking for f/1.4. I suppose the Tamron 35 could replace the 35/2 IS, but it's only a third of a stop wider aperture and it's quite a bit bigger and heavier, so it's not such a good fit for the role of small, light prime ... And if I'm not going small and light then I think I'd be more tempted by the sigma 35 art. Still, will be interesting to see more reviews of the Tamron twins (ok, so they're not identical twins, but they do look a lot alike). Maybe the IQ will turn out to be so good I'll have to reconsider.

 

[kubelik]

I've got the 35mm f/2 IS so not exactly clamoring for these lenses, but am still intrigued on principle. I like the fact that Sigma is bringing some real competition to Canon, and Tamron upping their game is also good for everyone whether or not you buy their products. I could see myself letting go of the incredible compactness of my shorty-40 for the Tamron 45mm f/1.8 as a replacement for my Canon 50mm f/1.4 that I sold off last year.

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

I do want to see either LensRentals or The Digital Picture put up some legitimate tests before getting really excited about these. I don't understand when reviewers go "we only care about performance in the real world! but ... we'll also do a sloppily conducted sharpness test to create the illusion of validating our field observations". if you really only care about real world performance, then just stick to your guns. if you're going to provide empirical data points, then make sure it's not junk data. just a pet peeve of mine... end rant.