I just bought the Tamron 1.8 used for my wife for Christmas here in South Africa. It's coming in the mail later this week and my wife is so..... excited....lol. Everything seems to be more expensive here....especially the high tech stuff. We paid nearly $400 for her lens in very good condition. Thanks for this very candid video I loved your humble heart and your willingness to admit your 1.4 was a gift. Personally I love having a lens that has VC on it. Keep shooting, and.... God bless.! "Subscribed"
So it costs more, almost double the weight, no stabilization, can't do macro like the 1.8 can, hmmm. Seems like the 1.8 is still a great lens and definitely the better bargain without much tradeoff at all.
thanks mam i saw ur vid for the first time and i really really am thankful to you for giving me the answers and maybe i just needed a pretty voice such as yours to decide which way to go.. and i could relate to you. happy to have seen this:)
I love my Tamron VC lenses and this past Christmas 2021 I purchased the 45 and 85 f/1.8 VC lenses for Nikon F mount. My Tamron 35 f/1.8 VC is very sharp on my D800. I'm currently borrowing a friends 45 f/1.8 in EF mount so I can compare them with one attached to my Nikon D600 and the other attached to my Canon 6D. I just have to find out if they are equally sharp regardless of lens mount.
I’m in situation to choose one of these 35mm lenses for my eos r. Rf glass is to expensive, very expensive 😃, I have a Tamron 70-200 f2.8 g2 and a Tamron 45mm f1.8, they both are great. Now I’m looking for a 35mm from Tamron 🤔 Subscribed 👍
Because of the lenses you already have, unless you need the VC on the 1.8 for video, I would go with the 1.4. The 1.4 will add that super wide aperture to your bag that you don't have yet. How are you liking the EOS R? I shoot my videos on my Sony mirrorless but I haven't decided if I'm going to make the leap for photo yet.
Teal Like the Color yes i think i go for 35 F1.4. How i like the eos r... Well the most i had only canon, my first camera was a canon rebel sl2. I tried Sony and Panasonic gh5s but I prefer Canon, personal taste :) I feel the Canon cameras have overall a more filmic image and are very easy to use
I would get the 1.4, and use the 45mm when image stab is needed. And since you've already got these two (relatively) new tamrons, having a _tap-in console_ might also be helpful.
Shit I thought you would have a lot more subs. Great video been debating life choices if I spend the extra couple hundo for the 1.4 lens ill probably rent the 1.8 before I make my final decision. Thanks again 👍😁
Since Tamron doesn't have the 35mm 1.4 with VC and Maco, I guess I'll probably do what you've done, and add the 90mm macro. I miss the days when a 24-70 was all I thought that I needed. 😁
Great video! I use a D800 and D600 and use a AFS Nikkor 35 f/1.8G but at times I wish I had VR and the Tamron 35 f/1.8 VC has lens based stabilization so the f/1.8 VC @ $599.00 is tempting but the Tamron 35 f/1.4 is $699.00 and if I ever upgrade my full frame camera bodies it'll be to the Z6 or Z6 mark II which has IBIS. This video gives me more to think about, darn! I know from watching RU-vid videos and reading various forums that the Sigma 35 f/1.4 is also a great lens but it sounds as if that lens needs a lot of focus adjustment and that's something I don't care for.
I have heard that a lot about the Sigma having focus issues too, so when I went looking for a 35mm lens I didn't even attempt to go that route. I have had my Tamron 1.8 for close to 4 years now and the 1.4 for just about a year and have never had focus issues with either. I just love them. Good luck with your decision!
i currently own a 1.8. and i am wondering whether i should switch it to 1.4. i use 35mm a lot and i shoot environmental portraits, or weddings, so i am often looking to that nice background blur, even if it is not so noticeable with the 35. it would be cool to see the actual difference of that blur at 1.4 and 1.8 side by side, just to have an idea if there is a lot to it.
I honestly don't think there is that much of a difference in back ground blur with 1.8 vs 1.4. I however don't find myself shooting that wide open very often. I used and loved them 1.8 for a long time and was completely happy with it. I dont think I would have ever "upgraded" to the 1.4 if Tamron didn't give me the lens. I dont feel like they are different enough to really warrant an "upgrade". Maybe rent the 1.4 or find someone local to you that has it and will let you play with it. They are both super similar and the results I get are pretty close to identical. I have loaned out my 1.8 to a friend but its an interesting video idea to see if there is really that much difference in the 2 side by side with all the same settings and set up.
This is such a cute video, thanks for taking your time to make it. It is a pity that back&forth arguments are confusing though. See: you said that the 1.4 is a bit more expensive, bigger, heavier and has no VC - hence although half a stop faster, but still cannot be used in such low light situation (and at slow shutter speeds) as the 1.8, so the only possible benefit could be a shallower depth of field at wide open - again you claimed that you use it mostly at 2.0-2.8, so it should not be a driver, or better image quality - which is not looked at here at all. So why you ended up going for the 1.4 is a question utterly left open... maybe to facilitate potential subscribers to revisit your videos... :-D anyways, keep going, your straight&honest approach is truly respectful.
