Tamron, Sigma, Canon, or Canon?

Purely from the image quality point of view, which one would you choose for 35mm and 85mm primes, assuming that you already have the range covered by f/2.8 zoom lenses and these would be your first primes?

Thanks,

Imre

PS: Your opinion is important to us....

Forever Young wrote:

Purely from the image quality point of view, which one would you choose for 35mm and 85mm primes, assuming that you already have the range covered by f/2.8 zoom lenses and these would be your first primes?

Thanks,

Imre

PS: Your opinion is important to us....

Because you said "purely from an image quality point of view, my actual answer probably would have been the Canon 35mm f1.4L ii and the sigma 85 art, but since it wasn't an option, I went all L's.

To be honest though, all these options are pretty good.  The Tamrons are really quite good, and you will appreciate VC.   The 35 f2 is and 85mm f1.8 from Canon are a great pair that I currently own.  They are very light and have nice bokeh and very good image quality for a very reasonable price.   The sigmas have excellent image quality and are built nicely but a little heavy.  The Canon L's have excellent image quality and are the top of the heap (don't know a lot about the 85 yet), but of course are expensive.  Seriously, none of the options are bad.

"If "IQ" includes the content of the pictures, shooting conditions get involved..."

- Good point and the answer is: Yes, it does...

Instead of 100/2, I would get Canon 100/2.8is macro.  You get prime, macro and is in one lens.  It is great for portraits as well as macro and all around sharp prime.  Bab

My other recommendation would be Canon 35/1.4ll.  I have the 35is and the new 35/1.4 is much better.  Bab

BAK wrote:

For instance, stabilization is handy in bad light unless you own a flash or a tripod.

I do a lot of shooting in museums and churches. IS is handy because flash and tripods are prohibited.

Forever Young wrote:

Purely from the image quality point of view, which one would you choose for 35mm and 85mm primes, assuming that you already have the range covered by f/2.8 zoom lenses and these would be your first primes?

Thanks,

Imre

PS: Your opinion is important to us....

I can only comment on what I have, and the choice I made. I bought the Tamron 35 f/1.8 a bit over a year and a half ago, and it practically lives on my camera.

In fact, I am selling my Sigma 24-105 f/4 because of it. The very fast, ultra reliable focus (I am hard pressed to remember when it ever missed focus frankly), edge-to-edge sharpness, weather sealing, and extremely close focusing all make it an amazingly versatile lens.

Being a 35mm lens, this was shot quite close. Weather sealing is a plus.

It can close-focus to near macro ability - under 3 inches from lens front. This image was barely cropped at all.

AF in low light is always highly dependent on the camera, but no issues to report from the lens point of view. I have used it in many many indoor, poorly lit events.

The problem I have with your poll is that you added these descriptions to what people think/feel, rather than just asking which of these options would you pick. Of your choices I would buy the L pair, but I can't comment on whether or not you'd regret buying them. For my use case I suspect they'd be the best option for me....though honestly I'd probably do the Canon 35 f2 L IS and the new Canon 85 f1.4L IS. Personally though, I'm torn, as I don't own a 35mm prime and while I do own an 85 prime, I hardly ever use it. I like the 135L better than the 85 f1.2, so take it all with a grain of salt, so to speak.

I am quite pleased with the performance of my EF 35/2 IS on cameras from my an original 7D to my newest, a 5Ds R. Having said that, the EF 35/1.4L II is high on my wish list, based upon much reading of some very serious articles and reviews, and much pixel-peeping. Some Sigma lenses are tempting me, but the 35 Art is not one of them.

I will not sell/trade my EF 35/2 IS when I add the L II. I use it for close-range images, often with a Macro Ring Lite flash, and it will always remain a light-weight/compact alternative to a heavier L.

With the excellent performance of my EF 100/2.8L Macro IS, EF 135/2L, and Zeiss 2/135 APO Sonnar ZE, plus a Voigtlander 90/3.5 SL II that I use on Nikon cameras, I have never felt an urgent need to add an 85mm. With the financial windfall associated with my upcoming retirement, when I am compensated for a very large amount of unused leave time, the 85mm options that most have my attention are the Zeiss Milvus, and perhaps a 70-200/2.8 zoom. Obviously, one is for relatively inactive subjects, and the other is for action, and I am likely to acquire both. Manual-focus for portraits has never seemed a hindrance, perhaps because my first mentor insisted that I learn manual focusing, from the outset.

I know you responded to this posting a month ago...what camera body do you use most with your EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS ? I have used both Nikon and Canon, still on the fence as far as buying this Canon lens again. The last time I used one was with a Canon 6D.

polizonte wrote:

I know you responded to this posting a month ago...what camera body do you use most with your EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS ? I have used both Nikon and Canon, still on the fence as far as buying this Canon lens again. The last time I used one was with a Canon 6D.

I bought my first EF 100/2.8L Macro IS soon after I upgraded to a pre-owned 40D, which was in October 2010, but within a few months bought a new 7D, so it has spent most of its life on a 7D, and then soon after it was available, on a 7D Mark II. I now have two 7D Mark II cameras, so rarely remove this Macro L from its host body.

I bought my second EF 100/2.8L Macro IS in early 2016, after I added a 5Ds R, which coincided with a price reduction, to about $850, for the lens. (I paid approximately $1050 for my first one.) This second lens has mostly been used on the 5Ds R. While a duplicate lens may seem redundant, I take my 7D Mark II cameras into hazardous situations, and the quickest form of insurance is a second copy of my most-important lens. (Hand-held close-range and macro shooting is important for documenting injuries. My typical “client” is a victim of domestic violence. I have to shoot many images of flowers, leaves, fungi, lichens, bees, and puppies, to balance things.)

My two favorite lenses, to use on the 5Ds R, are the Macro L and EF 35mm f/2 IS. I did shoot one crime scene with this combination, as an experiment, but the huge files made uploading the images quite slow.

A nice budget-priced macro lens, is the Tokina 100mm f/2.8 Macro AT-X. I used my wife’s copy of this lens to develop a passion for close-range shooting. I prefer to use a weather-sealed, splash-resistant lenses while on duty, so acquired the Macro L.

Rexgig0 - Thank you for the your concise/useful information that gave me the final nudge to order a refurbished 100mm f/2.8 L at 15% off from Canon USA for 612$.

polizonte wrote:

Rexgig0 - Thank you for the your concise/useful information that gave me the final nudge to order a refurbished 100mm f/2.8 L at 15% off from Canon USA for 612$.

Enjoy!

Sigma all the way.