Tamron 35mm VC vs. Canon 35mm II

[[email protected]]

I sold my Canon 35mm II, the one with the Blue Goo, and bought in the new Tamron 35mm with VC.

The quick impressions, with both fresh in my mind (although I didn't have them side-by-side)....

- The VC on the Tammy gives me what I feel is about 2 stops of stabilization. That's the key benefit (aside from $1100 of additional cash) from the Canon.
- In exchange for the two stops, you get some significant color aberration, with fringing in the corners. This is only in some shots with extreme contrast. To give you some perspective, shooting a page of black and white text won't show it, but shoot a scene with metallic highlights blown in the corners, and it'll be readily apparent. It's not in many images, and cleaned up nicely in post.
- Other Tammy benefits include huge weight and size reductions over the Canon.
- The image quality is really remarkably good. It is better than my Sigma 18-35 Art at 35mm, and that is really saying something.
- The lens did not require any calibration (dumb luck), and I don't believe the 35 is compatible with the new Tamron dock, although perhaps a future firmware release will change that.

All-in-all, I'm very, very pleased so far. I prefer the Tammy over the Canon for the weight and length; the quality is on par (probably slightly softer in some peeping fashion); and the VC is heaven-sent when you're taking pictures outdoors at 8 p.m.

Looking forward to the 85mm version.

 

[[email protected]]

A few new observations:

When I compared my 18-35 Art Sigma to the Canon 35 L II, the Canon was demonstrably superior - although at this point, you're really splitting hairs. I sold my Canon before receiving the Tammy, and now I find myself comparing the new Tamron against the Sigma zoom. Again, the Tammy is superior at f/1.8. This is significant, because that Sigma lens is pretty amazing. Interestingly, the Tammy loses its edge against the Sigma by f/2.8, where the Sigma's contrast and colors pop more and the sharpness evens out to be about even with that of the Tammy.

The upshot is that you can't go wrong with any of these lenses for general use, but the Tamron costs a boatload less, has VC, and can do the close focus trick, and works on full frame (unlike the Sigma, although you can get a vignetted 35mm on a full sensor).

I'll also note that I have witnessed the dreaded color aberration. Took a couple minutes to fix in post. It's a disadvantage, but not terribly common and addressable when it appears.

 

[JohanCruyff]

The quick impressions, with both fresh in my mind (although I didn't have them side-by-side)....
- The VC on the Tammy gives me what I feel is about 2 stops of stabilization. That's the key benefit (aside from $1100 of additional cash) from the Canon.
- In exchange for the two stops, you get some significant color aberration, with fringing in the corners. This is only in some shots with extreme contrast. To give you some perspective, shooting a page of black and white text won't show it, but shoot a scene with metallic highlights blown in the corners, and it'll be readily apparent. It's not in many images, and cleaned up nicely in post.
- Other Tammy benefits include huge weight and size reductions over the Canon.
- The image quality is really remarkably good. It is better than my Sigma 18-35 Art at 35mm, and that is really saying something.
- The lens did not require any calibration (dumb luck), and I don't believe the 35 is compatible with the new Tamron dock, although perhaps a future firmware release will change that.

All-in-all, I'm very, very pleased so far. I prefer the Tammy over the Canon for the weight and length; the quality is on par (probably slightly softer in some peeping fashion); and the VC is heaven-sent when you're taking pictures outdoors at 8 p.m.

Thank you for sharing your impressions!
When you decided to replace the EF 35mm F/1.4 II L, did you consider the EF 35mm F/2.0 IS, which share many features with the Tammy (weight, cost, IS etc.)?

 

[[email protected]]

Thank you for sharing your impressions!
When you decided to replace the EF 35mm F/1.4 II L, did you consider the EF 35mm F/2.0 IS, which share many features with the Tammy (weight, cost, IS etc.)?
[/quote]

I did think about it, but was looking for something significantly sharper. I haven't played with a copy myself, but I did look at test images online. I got spoiled by the Sigma 18-35 on my crop body. I even used it on my 5D3, and it worked pretty well at 35 and was deadly sharp. To justify buying a lens for the full frame kit, it needed to be a sharpness equal or superior to the Sigma. That's why I started with the new Cannon 1.4 II.

 

[JohanCruyff]

Thank you for sharing your impressions!
When you decided to replace the EF 35mm F/1.4 II L, did you consider the EF 35mm F/2.0 IS, which share many features with the Tammy (weight, cost, IS etc.)?

I did think about it, but was looking for something significantly sharper. I haven't played with a copy myself, but I did look at test images online. I got spoiled by the Sigma 18-35 on my crop body. I even used it on my 5D3, and it worked pretty well at 35 and was deadly sharp. To justify buying a lens for the full frame kit, it needed to be a sharpness equal or superior to the Sigma. That's why I started with the new Cannon 1.4 II.

I see: The Digital Picture confirms the sharpness of the Tamron: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=122&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1003&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

It seems that Canon 35mm's corners reach the Tamron ones when both are stopped down to F/5.6.

 

[Random Orbits]

Thank you for sharing your impressions!
When you decided to replace the EF 35mm F/1.4 II L, did you consider the EF 35mm F/2.0 IS, which share many features with the Tammy (weight, cost, IS etc.)?

I did think about it, but was looking for something significantly sharper. I haven't played with a copy myself, but I did look at test images online. I got spoiled by the Sigma 18-35 on my crop body. I even used it on my 5D3, and it worked pretty well at 35 and was deadly sharp. To justify buying a lens for the full frame kit, it needed to be a sharpness equal or superior to the Sigma. That's why I started with the new Cannon 1.4 II.

I see: The Digital Picture confirms the sharpness of the Tamron: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=122&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1003&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

It seems that Canon 35mm's corners reach the Tamron ones when both are stopped down to F/5.6.

Is there a reason why you're linking the comparison to the original 35 f/2 as opposed to the much better 35 f/2 IS?