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

[ritholtz]

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.

It is front focusing in this image right?

 

[Sporgon]

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.

This may well be the reason why we haven't seen an 85/1.4 Sigma Art yet !

 

[Solar Eagle]

I'm a little jealous the Tamron beats my 35 F/2 IS in several ways but when it comes down to it I like the looks, size and weight of the Canon better, which is more important to me than incremental performance gains.

Anybody can make a lens better by making it bigger................ End of story.

 

[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.

It is front focusing in this image right?

No, it's spot on after AFMA on the 6D. Here's a 100% crop. (The shot was 1/800s at f/1.8, ISO 200)

 

[Hjalmarg1]

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

I will stick to my Canon EF 35mm f2 IS, since its AF is very reliable. Unless I have big pockets for the new 35L II or keep saving.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

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

I will stick to my Canon EF 35mm f2 IS, since its AF is very reliable. Unless I have big pockets for the new 35L II or keep saving.

Hard to argue with that. The 35 IS is one of the better lenses I've used for AF performance, period.

 

[jd7]

I'm a little jealous the Tamron beats my 35 F/2 IS in several ways but when it comes down to it I like the looks, size and weight of the Canon better, which is more important to me than incremental performance gains.

Anybody can make a lens better by making it bigger................ End of story.

As a 35 f/2 IS owner, I was feeling a little jealous too ... but I don't think so anymore after reading the TDP review. From what I've seen I prefer the Canon's bokeh, the AF is great, and it's smaller and lighter. And if I was going to change to another 35 mm lens now, it would be the Sigma 35 Art and its f/1.4 aperture (and IQ at f/1.4). I can still see why some people will be attracted to the Tamron though - it's just a case of choosing your preferred set of trade offs.

 

[LonelyBoy]

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?

My 50A is dead-on (at least to my amateur eyes, but I certainly can't call it "bad" by any stretch). I'd very much believe copy-to-copy, especially given the number of people who advised sending a "bad" copy in for calibration rather than exchanging it for another.

 

[searsie]

Are the tamron 35 and 45 that much different? Bryan didn't seem to have as much issue with focusing with the 45. My 6D 45mm combo has no issues with centre point (-1 AFMA) and honestly don't own or ever owned a lens Canon or otherwise that I'd trust the 6D outer points with. My 45 seems to be hitting at around 80% with the outer point enabled which is waaay better than what I could expect from my departed Canon 1.4. And no comparison re build quality or wide open sharpness. Waited a looonng time for a modern +-50 from Canon and didn't happen. Happy with my 45 and love the near macro.

 

[FramerMCB]

I'm a little jealous the Tamron beats my 35 F/2 IS in several ways but when it comes down to it I like the looks, size and weight of the Canon better, which is more important to me than incremental performance gains.

Anybody can make a lens better by making it bigger................ End of story.

As a 35 f/2 IS owner, I was feeling a little jealous too ... but I don't think so anymore after reading the TDP review. From what I've seen I prefer the Canon's bokeh, the AF is great, and it's smaller and lighter. And if I was going to change to another 35 mm lens now, it would be the Sigma 35 Art and its f/1.4 aperture (and IQ at f/1.4). I can still see why some people will be attracted to the Tamron though - it's just a case of choosing your preferred set of trade offs.

Well...and let's not forget there's a significant price point difference between the Sigma and the Tamron and with the Tamron you're getting VC as well as weather sealing. Just sayin'

 

[AWR]

I have never had a single problem with Sigma Art 50mm AF.
I must be lucky, because "there's numerous reports in the forums".

 

[ahsanford]

I have never had a single problem with Sigma Art 50mm AF.
I must be lucky, because "there's numerous reports in the forums".

Again, I want the Sigma lenses to succeed. But when trusted reviewers present the failings of a lens's AF consistency, I take it very seriously.

This isn't a smear campaign on Sigma -- not at all:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-50mm-f-1.4-DG-HSM-Art-Lens.aspx
(Half way down, find the butterfly. No calibration dock will fix that!)

- A

 

[gggplaya]

I have never had a single problem with Sigma Art 50mm AF.
I must be lucky, because "there's numerous reports in the forums".

Mine was all over the place until i AFMA. Once i got it dial in, it was fine.

 

[Luds34]

...and honestly don't own or ever owned a lens Canon or otherwise that I'd trust the 6D outer points with.

Same here. If I'm forced to use the outer points on the 6D I fire extra shots knowing my keeper rate just dropped tremendously. In fairness "dropped tremendously" is in part to how awesome the center point is.

 

[Luds34]

Well...and let's not forget there's a significant price point difference between the Sigma and the Tamron and with the Tamron you're getting VC as well as weather sealing. Just sayin'

Very true. However (and I admit I'm a bit biased) there is something pretty sexy about that f/1.4. I've been pretty ecstatic with some of the shots I've gotten with the 35mm Art. It surpassed my expectations.