I don't think there is much doubt the Sigma is sharper, but they are also quite different lenses. For one thing the Sigma weighs 815g, is huge, and costs about $1000 if you include the USB Dock. The Tamron probably performs to its price, but also comes with the weather sealing, image stabilization, and the close focusing distance.
Perhaps, but as it is still a heavy lens for a 1.8 it will need to be close to Sigma sharpness to get me on board. The Nikon 50/1.8 isn't the sharpest lens in their Arsenal, it's tiny, light and cheap. If the Tamron isn't sharper than the Nikon I'll go for the Sigma or the Nikon...
Agree the Tamron 45mm f1.8 needs to be close to Sigma 50mm in sharpness. So far the examples I've seen seem to indicate the Tamron's more than decent wide open with better than average bokeh. That close focus is calling me.... LOL
Well the CA doesn't worry me overly, and I'll take accurate and consistent AF over speed any day, so it's looking good thus far.
I think somewhere in an interview the Tamron designers mentioned that they deliberately sacrificed AF speed slightly in favor of accuracy. The video review seems to echo that the Tamron's seem to AF more accurately than the Sigma ART series.
More weight to these lenses looking VERY good. I'd expect slower focus going through the full range with close focus. I've never ever heard anyone pronounce bokeh like boca. LOL
Many words in English admit multiple pronunciations. Such as 'news' which is either nooze or nyooze. Etc.
I know, very true. I looked up Bokeh for the first time in ages and it appears boca would be close to the Japanese pronunciation. I've just never heard it that way, but could be in these forums people write the word but would pronounce it boka.
If LR has them in stock, I bet a certain Roger Cicala will be writing something about them fairly soon.
Mostly a glowing review. Though I don't think it's a fair comparison to time AF from the min focus distance through the full range and talk about how slow it is, when other comparable lenses start at a much further point. Also I wonder if he was slightly in front of the min focus distance with the "eye" shots he had trouble with? That would explain it. Most other reviews have praised the accuracy of focus at the expense of speed, so this makes me wonder about the reviewer.
Seems these should start hitting shelves now, looking forward to more reviews/comparisons
