Lens Poll.

jitteringjr wrote:

Tried the 45 / 1.8 VC. Returned it within 30 minutes of having received it.

Can I ask why? I was under the impression it was a good lens only bested by the Sigma 50 Art in sharpness: certainly sharper than any prime from Canon in the normal range.

Well, I happen to own, and love, the SIgma 50 / 1.4A.  I ordered the Tamron 45 / 1.8 VC based on the hype, thinking maybe I'd prefer the smaller size, weight, and VC to 2/3 of a stop.

As it turns out, the 50 / 1.4A was at least as sharp at f/1.8 as the 45 / 1.8 VC was wide open, didn't have anywhere near the PF (purple fringing).  But here's the kicker -- not only was the AF of the 45 / 1.8 VC slower than the 50 / 1.4A, it was the 45 / 1.8 VC that suffered from the AF problems you normally hear attributed to Sigma (I have no AF issues with my 50 / 1.4A, except with outer AF points).

So, back it went, and quickly.

Anyway, while I hear the 85 / 1.8 VC is better in all respects, the VC is still rather poor (2-3 stops compared to the 5 stops of their 70-200 / 2.8 G2 VC, although I've heard reports of AF issues with that lens, too), and I'm not all that keen on an 85mm prime (would love to see what they could do with a 135 / 2.8 -- yes, f/2.8 -- VC prime, though, but no one's going to make such a lens, anyway).

So, who knows.  The Sigma 135 / 1.8 appeals to me a lot, but it's huge, expensive, no OS, and I really don't need f/1.8 at 135mm (not that I wouldn't find uses for it, but I'd prefer f/2.8 and OS in a smaller and lighter package, and, no, a 70-200 / 2.8 IS zoom will not do since those are even larger and heavier still).

Regardless, it's not like I need anything more than what I have, and the things I want, no one is going to make while I'm alive, if ever.  On the other hand, the 6D2 might bring some things to the table that I'll be wanting, so I guess I'll wait and see what those things might be.