Seattle RU-vidrs in the building! One thing I would also point out about the Tamron is that you are more likely to get a better focusing copy right out of the box. I'm aware that Sigma has a dock where you can adjust the focus and whatnot. But life is so much better when the things you buy work right out of the box. I've shot both. I own the Tamron.
Hey Ike :-) Thanks! The Tamron is compatible with their TAP-in console, too... although I didn't have focus problems with either one. I've heard of issues with both, and it seems to be more common with some camera/lens combinations than others.
If anyone is having a hard time deciding which one to get, I say to just go for the Tamron, no question. Sure sigma is a touch faster and is a biit sharper, but it''s not like the tamron isn't sharp at all, and in most situations the VC is going to help out more than the tiny bit faster aperture. Besides if you ever need to take video, then the Tamron becomes much much better than the sigma. And besides you're saving quite a bit by going with the Tamron. Hope that helped anyone!
That stabilization is the reason why I'm thinking to sell my Sigma and get the Tamron. Even when on a tripod, shooting video and changing the focus, the micro-vibrations are still visible. It might be also me that I'm not that steady, but when in run&gun situations that stabilization is a life-saver.
It's a pity you completely skipped over the Tamron's biggest strength, which is important to those who love close up focusing - the Tamron can focus 10cm closer and has double the magnification at 0.38x - this is very impressive for a 35mm lens. Really surprised you didn't compare them for this purpose.
On a side note, I’ve played around with multiple Tamron lenses and haven’t been disappointed. They are definitely worth their price & produce fine images that are more pleasing to the eye, in my opinion
I am a school photographer doing a lot of sports, teams, stage productions, and events. I currently use a Tam 24-70 G1 for team shots, and its a bit wanting in edge sharpness. Im shopping for a sharp 35mm fast lens. I've been looking at reviews for about 3 weeks. This is the best and most useful evaluation I've seen. I use DxO Mark for data, but this really brings it to life. The Sig looks much better by the numbers, but this review has really changed my perspective (no pun intended). Fabulous work!
Now you also have to consider the 35mm f/1.4 Tamron, outperforming the Sigma but it's still the same question, do you need more aperture and sharpness or a lighter lens with stabilization.
Matt, you are my go to guy when I start to research a new lens. It usually takes me about a year to decide candidates, research, budget and finally pull the trigger. I'm going to get a 35mm or 50mm. I bought 70-200 and a 24-70 last 2 year. I almost bought Canons but I got the Tamron original in 70-200 and G2 in 24-70 (I missed the G2 on the 200mm by a few months) I sent you a single donation since you saved me a huge chunk of money. I suggest others do the same. Just 20% of what you saved me seemed fair.
Nice you are posting again a lens comparison. I have been looking out for you and wondered if you had passed away or something because of the long silence. But god thank, no. You're back. Thanks for the vid, mate - it's great!
I think Tamron 35mm has a largely flat field up til the horizontal edges of frames, the far corners are less taken care of. It is more usable in most use cases of a 35mm lens for streets product shot, portraits and travel photos. Plus Tamron focuses a lot closer and has VC
That Tamron 35 was such a nice surprise to me- I bought it for “fun photos” and walking around, vacations, etc and I didn’t ever expect it to do anything remarkable because I pretty much use L lenses for my “serious business” photos and I guess that turned me into a snob in many ways. The plan was to upgrade to canons 35mm 1.4L ii at some point, but I actually never wanted to after all. The fringing does suck, but the weather sealing, size/weight, and stabilization more than make up for it (to a casual 35mm shooter like me). My dilemma right now is that I just switched to canon’s mirrorless system and I’m tempted to switch this lens (with adapter) for the RF 35mm F1.8... If anyone has used both I would love advice and opinions
Agreed. I haven't used it with the EOS R yet, but I have used the R with plenty of Canon adapted lenses, which work fine, as I'm sure you know... and Tamron's 35mm f/1.8 is on Tamron's list of lenses that officially support Canon's EF to R adapter with the latest firmware. With any luck, though, someone here will have used them together and will chime in with some info.
I love the images Sigma produces but the last Sigma 35mm 1.4 art I've rented had pretty bad focusing issue in my Nikon D810. It was super sharp wide open but the forcing problem was pretty unpleasant and unpredictable. It could be that I had bad copy of the lens too.
You always have great comparisons. Do you ever compare lens flare? Most of my wedding ceremonies and family portrait shoots are on the beach and during sunset. While a little flare can be "artistic", too much can render images useless; especially if there is lens flare covering a bride's face. For example, the Tamron 24-70 2.8 is sooooo sharp at 2.8. But it does not do well looking at the sun. Thanks.
I haven't really done flare tests consistently; I usually only do it when I'm testing ultra-wide lenses... but it's something that I'm planning on doing regularly in the future. Thanks for the reminder 🙂
Great video. I'm just deciding between these two and still canon RF35 ... but in this comparison, when I look at the last 20: 50min, the tamron is much sharper, so why sigma so everyone sings
Hi, thanks for Making such an excellent comparison between the two lenses. I would be more interested if you can compare Tamron 35 with Sigma 30mm f1 4. How does the sharpness of these lenses change if we have an apsc sensor camera?
Something that doesn't appear to affect most people, but for those of us it does, it sucks, is the Sigma CAN have focus issues. I rented the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART for a Senior session and just couldn't get the AF to work well. Not having time to fool with it, I exchanged it for the Tamron 35mm f/1.4 and it worked great. No adjustment necessary. I now own the Tamron 35mm f/1.8 VC because, as some others have pointed out: close focusing and VC. A close runner-up wouldl have been the Tamron 1.4 or Nikon 1.8, in that order. No Sigmas for me. But, again, a lot of people don't have any problems and love them!
I absolutely love the Tamron 35 1.4, thought it was released just as I was making the switch to Sony and I didn't use it much. And you're right... some people do complain of focus issues with Sigma lenses. I haven't had problems myself, but I've certainly heard about them... I don't know if it's problems with specific camera models or specific lens samples or what.
I've noticed magenta fringing (longitudinal chromatic aberration) on out-of-focus edges in the center of the frame with the Tamron SP 45mm f1.8. I'm wondering if this fringing is better or worse on the Tamron 35mm f1.8?
Yeah its Quite bad to thats why im thinking about Selling my 45mm for a sigma 35. I shoot weddings that often have big windows in the churches and the fringimg is quite bad against the white dress
I own both lenses and I find the TAMRONto be a lot more useful to my needs ( Stabilization + closer Magnification ) specially indoors, where you need to stop down for group shots and whatnot.
Agreed; the stabilization is very helpful for portraits and the like, where the subjects are relatively stationary. I suppose that I'm unusual in that I rarely reach for a 35mm lens when I want to shoot macro or general close up work 🙂
thanks for your efforts . even i'm a nikon guy , i like your videos . BUT it's un-fair to compare f1.4 to f1.8 , it was logical to compare at the same f/stop .
A good point. That was my initial thought, too, and I did shoot them both at f/1.8. If you'd like to see those results, I'll post the images in the article at my website when I get the RAW files up later today. However, in real world use, people who buy the Sigma lens are not going to be shooting it stopped down to f/1.8, so I thought it would be more practical to show it wide open... and since those 2/3rds of an extra stop are what people are paying the extra money for.
+Matthew You did show and compare them at the same f-stops. To omit comparisons at f1.4 would be a disservice. Just as it would be a disservice to omit the stabilisation of Tamron since the Sigma lens lacks that. You chose correctly, I think :-)
I really wanted the Sigma 35mm f1.4, due to its purported sharpness. I think I'll stick with my Tamron 35mm f1.8 since it's pretty darned close....and I bought it for nickles :)
I'll plan on it. I was hoping that Canon would announce their stabilized version before I start testing these, but looks like I'll have to make another set when the time comes.
Hi Vanessa, I didn't have any autofocus problems with either lens... the Tamron and the Sigma both performed nice and fast for me. If I were to rank them for speed, I'd probably go Canon 35 f/2 IS, Tamron 35 f/1.8 VC, Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART, but as I say, they're all really close, and you shouldn't have any problem with any of them... assuming that we're talking about shooting photos through the viewfinder. If you're talking about video or shooting live-view, then it really depends on the camera, and nothing is going to be very fast, but I also didn't test them that way, so I can't say for sure.
It would depend on the mount. If you get it for Sony E-mount, and shoot a camera that has IBIS, then Tamron loses its big advantage over the Sigma, and I'd get the Sigma. If you're shooting Nikon F or Canon EF, then it's tricky... but I would probably go for the Tamron for the stabilization and performance across the frame. But they're both excellent lenses, so you can't really go wrong.
@@MatthewGore thanks for the reply , i have a Nikon D850, oh by the way how does the nikon 35mm 1.8 for FX, compare to Tamron 35 thanks, which would be better if i am choosing between the 2, thanks again
Sigma is sharp, I owned the 50mm art lens. Sold it after looking through the photos and comparing them to cheaper Nikon alternatives. Images are very flat. The lack of good micro-contrast causes them to lack depth and any 3d pop. Very disappointing because I wanted to love that series. There is definitely more to a lens than just being sharp.
Hey Cassidy! I've heard other people say the same thing about Sigma lenses, but I'm afraid that I can't agree. Sigma lenses have excellent micro-contrast, generally speaking, despite the claims made by some RU-vidrs out there... it is one of the components of sharpness, and you can always add micro-contrast prominence after shooting if you still want more (sharpening filters like "unsharp mask" work by darkening the dark side of an edge and brightening the light side of it... ie, adding micro-contrast). I have a video on sharpening in Photoshop that's about 10 years old, now, but it's a good demonstration of how this works. (ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-GNGdLHkuLvs.html) The "flat" issue that one popular blogger wrote about with Sigma lenses was the result of the fact that the Sigma 50mm ART produces slight pincushion distortion, while most lenses produce a little barrel distortion. Again, this is just a matter of personal taste... both are distortion... and both can be corrected in post (or you can add barrel distortion to the Sigma. Anyway, I understand that some people would rather start out shooting with a lens that matches their taste a little more closely, even if it does not have the resolution... again, that's just a matter of taste and workflow preference. Personally, though, I'd rather capture as much information as possible in the camera, and then adjust the image later if necessary... you can never add detail that you didn't capture to begin with :-)
Man I have the Sigma 50 1.4 Art and its just superb. The sharpest 50 I shot with no CA almost and very very Nice contrast and color. It's the King of 50mm
between a sigma 35mm 1.4 or 30mm 1.4 lens for recording RU-vid videos promoting business products in my room! In your opinion which one is the better fit? If you don’t mind me asking!
Hey Joon, I'm sorry to say that I am not a video shooter myself... I stick to still photography (with rare exceptions). So, I'm not the best person to ask. In either case, it would depend on which camera you're using... but if we're talking about something like a Canon 80D, then I'd go for the wider lens... the 30mm f/1.4, just because it won't be so tight. I might even go was wide as 24mm.
It is expensive to construct autofocus lenses with f/1.4 or f/1.2 apertures which have sharp corners wide open. Numerous elements are required which correct various optical problems. Only Canon has succeeded to created f/1.2 sharp autofocus lenses. Also the depth of field at f/1.2 or f/1.4 is very shallow and that is very demanding for the autofocus mechanism. That elevates the cost too. Lately Chinese and Korean lens manufacturers have introduced many manual lenses with f/1.2 or even f/0.95 apertures mostly for mirrorless cameras. However all of this lenses doesn't have sharp corners wide open. Also they suffer from chromatic aberration, low contrast and geometric distortion. Nearly always with lenses you get what you pay. Technological depreciation is very slow with lenses and especially with manual, prime ones.
For APS-C, you might want to consider the Canon 35mm f/2 IS instead. It's sharper than the Tamron in the center of the image, where the APS-C sensor will benefit from the sweet-spot effect, and the 1/3rd stop difference in maximum aperture is minimal.
Thanks a ton Matthew, i've heard the canon has terrible coma, i often like to shoot at night and this could be a deal breaker, what about coma on the tamron?
Skaters are people too :-) Joking aside, I don't use portraits for my resolution/sharpness shots for two reasons: it introduces the potential for confusion from subject movement and from slight differences in the focusing point. It certainly wouldn't hurt to add in some portraits for general interest, though, you're right.
@@MatthewGore You are too hung up on measurements. Subjective analysis is more important to photographers. We are closer in thought to a studio than a lab.
Both lenses handle flare so well that I didn't try comparing them. When shooting into the sun, I get a little veiling flare from both, but even that is pretty minimal. Without a filter on the lens, this was the only shot where I got any visible flare on the Tamron, with the sun just out of the frame: www.lightandmatter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/K83A4168-tamron-at-f1.8.jpg
Sigma price points are a hair below canon l but canon l and tamron on the whole provide a better value. I gave up on sigma long ago. The world is going to cameras and lens combination that need arabization so you can shoot video and still photography with DSLR or mirror less bodies. Sigma is a generation behind as usual in weather sealing and stabilization.
While the Tamron now has a 35mm 1.4 and I do like the Bokeh better on the sigma 35mm 1.4 over the Tamron 35mm 1.8.. The Tamron performs very well.. And having VC on most of my lenses has often saved my ass.. I'd pick the Tamron 35mm 1.8 VC over the other lenses.. it's priced right and would give me enough quality for me to be quite satisfied with it.
Yep, when I made this video, the Tamron 1.4 anniversary lens hadn't been released yet. However, I can say that the Tamron 1.4 was probably the best 35mm lens that I had ever used when I first tried it around 2018. It's a shame they didn't make it for Sony, since I switched from Canon around that time, and I'd own one now if they did.
i would like to see the SONY Vario-Sonnar T* 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM II vs Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 G2 since i could use the SONY Vario-Sonnar T* 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM II on my Sony A Mount camera a99/2....Currently i am using the Sigma 24-70mm which is Sigma's lens for the Sony A mount, the new Sigma Art 24-70mm as the Tamron 24-70mm G2 is NOT made for the Sony A mount and i am considering updating without going to the E mount system, thank you.........'
For me, the stabilization of the Tamron is a pretty important consideration, too. The Sigma's sharpness doesn't come into play if there's camera shake :-)
The Tamron is better for close ups and the manual focus blows the Sigma away. Too many auto focusing issues and lack of weather sealing steered me clear of the Sigma.
Yes, I didn't realize how green the kon-peki was going to be, but I still like it. My favorite bright blue is still Noodler's Bay State Blue, even though it's bottle isn't as attractive as the iroshizuku :-)
It does tend to stain, but that's OK with me. I have a relatively inexpensive Cross pen the writes wonderfully and I keep Bay State Blue in it all the time, and I don't put it in my more expensive pens. It was a good excuse for me to buy more pens, actually :-) Bay State doesn't have the best shading, so I'm about to try out Diamine Blue Velvet to see how it compares.
Strip down a late model Tamron lens and a Sigma equivalent.... take a look at the internal construction and attention to detail... you'll never pay a premium price for a Sigma ever again. Tamron for the win.
sigma auto focus is just too damned slow for me. tamron is the better value. sigma price point is about the same as used canon l lens so I prefer if I spend that kind of money to go l glass
I don't think I've ever met a lens that doesn't have any, but most can be corrected pretty well in post, if desired. But I'll work on a way to show levels of distortion in future videos.
You seem to be a very particular reviewer so considering that the fact that you didn’t bring up the major wide spread issue of the sigma’s auto focusing problems and gave them both a star for it is quite pathetic and bias. I’m currently trying to sell my sigma because of how bad the AF is. Tamron for me. Other then that excellent review.
Hi Dan, I can only report what I experienced. I have simply not had any problem with the AF on this lens... I'm not denying that other people have. For me, it was as good as any other lens that I've tested. Now, that might be because of the lens that I got... maybe I got a good one and others get faulty ones. Maybe it's the camera/lens combination. Whatever the case may be, it's not bias... I don't get any money from Sigma, I don't have any sort of agreements with them or any reason to favor them (check my review of the Sigma 24-70 ART. Not good, not good auto-focus). - Matthew
@@dannyklesh As with most things in photography, it really depends on how you intend to use them. For me, even at 35mm the stabilization was pretty important for the kind of work that I do, and I'm not a huge bokeh fanatic like some people are, so I'd lean towards Tamron f/1.8. For people who love bokeh, who are shooting from a tripod, or who really need the extra light that the Sigma provides, I'd say that's the way to go... especially for Sony E-mount.
