Lens Poll.

Great Bustard wrote:

Let's say Sigma or Canon were to put out a new set of "slow" primes that, stop-for-stop, were every bit as good as the best out there, if not better, have IS, and were a lot smaller and lighter. Would you buy they at the same price point?

For example, consider the following examples:

• A 35 / 2 IS that was every bit as good as the 35 / 1.4L II stop-for-stop, if not better, had 5 stop IS, and not much larger than the current 35 / 2 IS.
• A 50 / 2 IS that was every bit as good as the Sigma 50 / 1.4A, stop-for-stop, if not better, had 5 stop IS, and halfway between the Canon 50 / 1.4 and Sigma 50 / 1.4A in size/weight.
• An 85 / 2 IS that was every bit as good as the Sigma 85 / 1.4A, stop-for-stop, if not better, had 5 stop IS, and halfway between the 85 / 1.8 and 85 / 1.4A in size/weight.

I have absolutely ZERO interest in slow prime, I buy prime mainly for it's large maximum aperture. size and weight has no impact on my lens purchase selection at all,  IS adds very little to almost no value to me due to the way I shoot, I already have in-body-stabilization in my Sony A7R II but i have it off most of the time. my IS is normally off on my 70-200 F2.8 IS II too.

Great Bustard wrote:

Let's say Sigma or Canon were to put out a new set of "slow" primes that, stop-for-stop, were every bit as good as the best out there, if not better, have IS, and were a lot smaller and lighter. Would you buy they at the same price point?

For example, consider the following examples:

• A 35 / 2 IS that was every bit as good as the 35 / 1.4L II stop-for-stop, if not better, had 5 stop IS, and not much larger than the current 35 / 2 IS.
• A 50 / 2 IS that was every bit as good as the Sigma 50 / 1.4A, stop-for-stop, if not better, had 5 stop IS, and halfway between the Canon 50 / 1.4 and Sigma 50 / 1.4A in size/weight.
• An 85 / 2 IS that was every bit as good as the Sigma 85 / 1.4A, stop-for-stop, if not better, had 5 stop IS, and halfway between the 85 / 1.8 and 85 / 1.4A in size/weight.

The only way for this to happen is to take an f/1.4 lens and artificially restrict it to f/2. But then the weight will be the same.

J A C S wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Let's say Sigma or Canon were to put out a new set of "slow" primes that, stop-for-stop, were every bit as good as the best out there, if not better, have IS, and were a lot smaller and lighter. Would you buy they at the same price point?

For example, consider the following examples:

• A 35 / 2 IS that was every bit as good as the 35 / 1.4L II stop-for-stop, if not better, had 5 stop IS, and not much larger than the current 35 / 2 IS.
• A 50 / 2 IS that was every bit as good as the Sigma 50 / 1.4A, stop-for-stop, if not better, had 5 stop IS, and halfway between the Canon 50 / 1.4 and Sigma 50 / 1.4A in size/weight.
• An 85 / 2 IS that was every bit as good as the Sigma 85 / 1.4A, stop-for-stop, if not better, had 5 stop IS, and halfway between the 85 / 1.8 and 85 / 1.4A in size/weight.

The only way for this to happen is to take an f/1.4 lens and artificially restrict it to f/2.

I think I have to disagree with you on this.  I should start a thread on that in the PST forum.

But then the weight will be the same.

Great Bustard wrote:

J A C S wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Let's say Sigma or Canon were to put out a new set of "slow" primes that, stop-for-stop, were every bit as good as the best out there, if not better, have IS, and were a lot smaller and lighter. Would you buy they at the same price point?

For example, consider the following examples:

• A 35 / 2 IS that was every bit as good as the 35 / 1.4L II stop-for-stop, if not better, had 5 stop IS, and not much larger than the current 35 / 2 IS.
• A 50 / 2 IS that was every bit as good as the Sigma 50 / 1.4A, stop-for-stop, if not better, had 5 stop IS, and halfway between the Canon 50 / 1.4 and Sigma 50 / 1.4A in size/weight.
• An 85 / 2 IS that was every bit as good as the Sigma 85 / 1.4A, stop-for-stop, if not better, had 5 stop IS, and halfway between the 85 / 1.8 and 85 / 1.4A in size/weight.

The only way for this to happen is to take an f/1.4 lens and artificially restrict it to f/2.

I think I have to disagree with you on this. I should start a thread on that in the PST forum.

Just to match the vignetting of an f/1.4 lens at f/2 you pretty much need what is called today an f/1.4 lens. Strong vignetting is responsible for weaker and poorer bokeh; one of the reasons f/1.4 lenses are much better at f/2 than f/2 ones (and not so great in terms of quality of the blur away from the center wide open).

J A C S wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

J A C S wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Let's say Sigma or Canon were to put out a new set of "slow" primes that, stop-for-stop, were every bit as good as the best out there, if not better, have IS, and were a lot smaller and lighter. Would you buy they at the same price point?

For example, consider the following examples:

• A 35 / 2 IS that was every bit as good as the 35 / 1.4L II stop-for-stop, if not better, had 5 stop IS, and not much larger than the current 35 / 2 IS.
• A 50 / 2 IS that was every bit as good as the Sigma 50 / 1.4A, stop-for-stop, if not better, had 5 stop IS, and halfway between the Canon 50 / 1.4 and Sigma 50 / 1.4A in size/weight.
• An 85 / 2 IS that was every bit as good as the Sigma 85 / 1.4A, stop-for-stop, if not better, had 5 stop IS, and halfway between the 85 / 1.8 and 85 / 1.4A in size/weight.

The only way for this to happen is to take an f/1.4 lens and artificially restrict it to f/2.

I think I have to disagree with you on this. I should start a thread on that in the PST forum.

Just to match the vignetting of an f/1.4 lens at f/2 you pretty much need what is called today an f/1.4 lens. Strong vignetting is responsible for weaker and poorer bokeh; one of the reasons f/1.4 lenses are much better at f/2 than f/2 ones (and not so great in terms of quality of the blur away from the center wide open).

I'll be pleased to learn something new!

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59575854

I think Tamron have it right, in manufacturing 35/1.8 VC and 85/1.8 VC instead of f1.4 equivalents. If you offered me the choice of those and a Sigma f1.4 Art I'd take the Tamrons... because in practice it's rather hard to use the f1.4 re DOF. The only Tamron lens I don't really want is the 45mm f1.8 VC. It's just not a 50mm, it's not long enough and it's not as special as the others. Would have preferred a 58mm f1.8 VC.

The current Tamrons also have a handy bonus in closer-focusing and higher reproduction ratio. For hobbyist photography around the house and on walkabout this and VC are far more useful than ego-trip superfast lenses.

fishy wishy wrote:

I think Tamron have it right, in manufacturing 35/1.8 VC and 85/1.8 VC instead of f1.4 equivalents. If you offered me the choice of those and a Sigma f1.4 Art I'd take the Tamrons... because in practice it's rather hard to use the f1.4 re DOF. The only Tamron lens I don't really want is the 45mm f1.8 VC. It's just not a 50mm, it's not long enough and it's not as special as the others. Would have preferred a 58mm f1.8 VC.

The current Tamrons also have a handy bonus in closer-focusing and higher reproduction ratio. For hobbyist photography around the house and on walkabout this and VC are far more useful than ego-trip superfast lenses.

This is along the lines of what I'm saying (but, in the specific case of the Tamron primes, the CA is simply unacceptable, the VC is marginal, and the sharpness is not quite there until stopped down a bit).

Great Bustard wrote:

fishy wishy wrote:

I think Tamron have it right, in manufacturing 35/1.8 VC and 85/1.8 VC instead of f1.4 equivalents. If you offered me the choice of those and a Sigma f1.4 Art I'd take the Tamrons... because in practice it's rather hard to use the f1.4 re DOF. The only Tamron lens I don't really want is the 45mm f1.8 VC. It's just not a 50mm, it's not long enough and it's not as special as the others. Would have preferred a 58mm f1.8 VC.

The current Tamrons also have a handy bonus in closer-focusing and higher reproduction ratio. For hobbyist photography around the house and on walkabout this and VC are far more useful than ego-trip superfast lenses.

This is along the lines of what I'm saying (but, in the specific case of the Tamron primes, the CA is simply unacceptable, the VC is marginal, and the sharpness is not quite there until stopped down a bit).

Looks just like you're talking nonsense at least 2/3 times according to Lenstip. Why write a whole thread on this if you are going to be so lazy investigating the lenses that already exist...

85mm: As you see that aberration depends weakly on the aperture value and most of results we got here range from 0.04 to 0.06%. It means the aberration is simply low and very difficult to spot in real life photos. The Tamron optics specialists did a very good job here.

The maximum distance between both curves reaches a bit below 3 EV and it is a result slightly lower than that declared by the producer. It also leaves us slightly dissatisfied. A stabilization unit in a lens of such quality should be as efficient as 3.5-4.0 EV. Still it’s worth mentioning here that the tested device is perhaps the only stabilized full frame portrait lens currently available on the market so it compares favourably to its rivals anyway.

To sum up the Tamron 1.8/85 VC, even if noticeably more expensive than the older 1.8/85 constructions of Canon and Nikon, remains distinctly sharper practically at all combinations of aperture and for all frame positions.

35mm: The Canon 2/35 IS had very similar results in this category but its maximum level was a bit higher. The Nikkor AF-S 1.8/35G fared worse practically at all aperture value for a change. Once again the Sigma A 1.4/35 is the most serious rival of the Tamron – it had results of 0.03-0.06% which were only slightly depending on the aperture value.

The maximum distance between both curves amounts to almost 3 EV and such is, according to our test, the efficiency of the stabilization mechanism. As you see the declarations of the producer and real life values match more or less and these values are additionally good so the lens should be assessed positively in this category.

Some small reservations you can have when it comes to the performance at the maximum relative aperture on the demanding edge of full frame; still on stopping down the situation improves swiftly and near f/2.2 the image is already of sensible quality. A swift reaction to stopping down is indeed one of the strong points of the tested Tamron. The Canon and the Sigma improved a lot slower and, as a result, the first of them reached the decency level only near f/3.5 and the Sigma, even if able to produce images of decent quality already from about f/2.0, didn’t impress us with its maximum results which barely exceeded 33 lpmm. On the edge of the frame the Tamron prevails over the whole group of 35 mm lenses, mentioned in this chapter of our test - a round of applause!

45mm: Once again the Tamron is defeated here by some of its rivals; for example the Sigma A 50 mm f/1.4 DG HSM didn’t exceed a level of 0.04% anywhere, the Nikkor AF-S 50 mm f/1.8G kept a level of 0.07–0.08%, and the Canon EF 50 mm f/1.8 STM had results ranging from 0.02 to 0.06%.

The maximum distance between both curves reaches a bit above 3 EV and such is, according to our test, the efficiency of the stabilization mechanism. As it is very close to the value declared by the producer the performance of the stabilization system of the tested lens should be assessed positively.

More optically complex Tamron doesn’t seem to provide a better performance than the old 1.8/50 models. It is a very interesting conclusion, especially when you remind yourself the declaration of the producer about an excellent cooperation with 50-million pixel sensors.

fishy wishy wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

fishy wishy wrote:

I think Tamron have it right, in manufacturing 35/1.8 VC and 85/1.8 VC instead of f1.4 equivalents. If you offered me the choice of those and a Sigma f1.4 Art I'd take the Tamrons... because in practice it's rather hard to use the f1.4 re DOF. The only Tamron lens I don't really want is the 45mm f1.8 VC. It's just not a 50mm, it's not long enough and it's not as special as the others. Would have preferred a 58mm f1.8 VC.

The current Tamrons also have a handy bonus in closer-focusing and higher reproduction ratio. For hobbyist photography around the house and on walkabout this and VC are far more useful than ego-trip superfast lenses.

This is along the lines of what I'm saying (but, in the specific case of the Tamron primes, the CA is simply unacceptable, the VC is marginal, and the sharpness is not quite there until stopped down a bit).

Looks just like you're talking nonsense at least 2/3 times according to Lenstip. Why write a whole thread on this if you are going to be so lazy investigating the lenses that already exist...

Wow -- what an attitude.  In any case, apologies for saying "CA" (chromatic aberration) -- I meant PF (purple fringing).

ZedDoctor wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

fishy wishy wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

fishy wishy wrote:

I think Tamron have it right, in manufacturing 35/1.8 VC and 85/1.8 VC instead of f1.4 equivalents. If you offered me the choice of those and a Sigma f1.4 Art I'd take the Tamrons... because in practice it's rather hard to use the f1.4 re DOF. The only Tamron lens I don't really want is the 45mm f1.8 VC. It's just not a 50mm, it's not long enough and it's not as special as the others. Would have preferred a 58mm f1.8 VC.

The current Tamrons also have a handy bonus in closer-focusing and higher reproduction ratio. For hobbyist photography around the house and on walkabout this and VC are far more useful than ego-trip superfast lenses.

This is along the lines of what I'm saying (but, in the specific case of the Tamron primes, the CA is simply unacceptable, the VC is marginal, and the sharpness is not quite there until stopped down a bit).

Looks just like you're talking nonsense at least 2/3 times according to Lenstip. Why write a whole thread on this if you are going to be so lazy investigating the lenses that already exist...

Wow -- what an attitude. In any case, apologies for saying "CA" (chromatic aberration) -- I meant PF (purple fringing).

..have you actually tried these lenses yourself? Or are you going by what reviews say?

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

First, let me say the first copy of the 35 1.8 did fringe, but after exchanging it for another, its fantastic. Along with the 85 1.8 VC.. which I got in place of the Sigma 85 1.4.

I hear the 85 / 1.8 VC is better than the 35 / 1.8 VC and 45 / 1.8 VC.

Me, I'd rather have a slower prime with VC then a faster aperture. They're smaller. lighter, and most of the time equal in performance.

The poll shows you to be in a minority, however.

Unless you enjoy whipping out your wallet, or an extreme pixel peeper who can't deal with not having the "very best", slower and cheaper is better.

Well, there's the 50 / 1.8 STM, then, right?

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.

Victor Engel wrote:

No amount of IS can stop the subject from moving.

Not all scenes have significant motion, and many scenes with little to no motion would benefit from a little more DOF.