As this Tamron is my #1 prime lens on an A7R III, I'll add some experierences to yours findings. 1) The optical quality of this lens is superb. It is only 2.8, yes, but it is sharp from to edge right at 2.8. Contrast is excellent, just as the colours are. However, I have a feeling that Tamron lenses tend to give a bit more yellowish colours, whereas Sony tends more towards blue. Well, okay, just tweak your WB, that's not a valid aspect for me if there are people who manipulate the hell out of their images. If you don't do 400% zooms, I don't see any difference in IQ to the G-Master, to be honest. Taking into account that this Tamron costs about 180-200€, that's a very strong argument. 2) The special feature of this lens has not been very prominent in your video: It is the most versatile 35mm lens for Sony E because you can get as close as 14 cm to your subject, making it ideal for capturing fine detail in a bigger reproduction ratio. Some might call it "pseudo macro", but it is really a very useful feature. 3) The lens has a weak spot and that is its AF. For photos, AF is completely fine. In video mode, however, it tends to readjust every now and then and it won't just stick to the focus point, resulting in noticeable breathing and some kind of a restless image. It is absolutely necessary to use MF for video to get what you want. However, using MF is tricky, too. Because of its close-up focusing abilities, the focus motor has to go quite some way and the ring isn't set to 180 or 360 degree, but instead to 2360 or something like that, meaning you can turn it around 7 times, depending on the speed of your rotation. Unfortunately, you can't set linear/non-linear focusing via Tamron's app as you can do with the 28-75 G2, for example. 4) Lens hood design for this lens has to be given some kind of award. That's smart engineering: adding almost no size to the lens itself. Summing this up: This lens is not for everybody. It is brilliant in the way it is thought to be used, but it is not one of these super-comfortable, modern lenses with silent and super fast, super reliable AF in every situation. Still, there is a lot to like about it - if you value what you get. I like to shoot with it, even though sometimes the clicking AF makes me angry :D Most of my photos have been taken with it and I can't find any reason to dislike them if it's not for my own choices at framing.
How is Chromatic and spherical aberration on Tamron compared to Sony? The only reason that's keeping me away from Sony is heavy fringing. Tamron seems like a great lens, but IMO tad too big to be a pancake lens and tad too slow for a prime lens (same aperture as fantastic 28-75 f/2.8 zoom that I already own).
I agree for a pancake lens its too big and for a prime it's too slow. As far as Chromatic and spherical aberration. I haven't had a problem with that with the Tamron lens line up. I know Some Sony lenses suffer from that. Personally if you have the 28-75 already then theres no need for the Tamron 35MM.
@@LALoveCreative so why do they say that primes are sharper? I also own the tamron 28-75mm and was going to buy the tamron 35mm f2.8 so dos this mean the 35mm @f4 vs the zoom lens @ f4 is the same quality? Thanks in advance!
Great video comparison. You should do a lens review on a really cheap lens just to see. Since $300 sounds good but that is still kinda expensive no? Thanks!
I need help. i got the zeiss 55 1.8 and i was wondering if i should go for the 24gm or the 35 zeiss 1.4 or maybe 35mm 1.8 from sony?. i only do portraits :(
Marco Marroncelli personally I would get the 35mm 1.8. I Shoot fashion work with it all the time Including portraits. Can’t go wrong with the Zeiss 35mm either but rather save money
