# First Review of New Tamron Prime Lenses



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 7, 2015)

```
Tamron recently announced two new prime lenses, a 35mm f/1.8 VC and a 45mm f/1.8 VC, both lenses are full frame compatible. Krolop & Gerst put the new lenses through their paces with a very extensive review with a lot of image samples and direct comparisons to the Sigma and Canon offerings that are around the same price.</p>
<p>All of the sample images in the review were shot with the Canon EOS 5DS R, and you’ll see the Tamron lenses mate very well with Canon’s most detailed oriented, full frame camera.</p>
<p><strong>35mm & 45mm, why?</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>35mm and 45mm seem to lie very close together, maybe too close? The decision for these two focal lenghts raised more than a few eyebrows… when do I use which lens and why? Well, the answer to that is quite simple. The 35mm lens clearly has the look of a wide angle lens while the 45mm has the look of a standard lens. Whoever wants to be where the action is should decide for the 35mm (which is more suitable for APS-C cameras as well, as the 45mm lens is too long for most „everyday scenes“) – BUT – if you like taking portraits on an APS-C camera, the 45mm is nearly perfect though… <a href="http://blog.krolop-gerst.com/technik/review-tamron-sp-35mm-45mm-f1-8-di-vc-usd-english/" target="_blank">Read the full review</a></p></blockquote>
<p>Both lenses are set to begin shipping at the end of September 2015.</p>
<ul>
<li>Tamron SP 35mm f/1.8 Di VC USD <a href="http://www.adorama.com/TM3518EOS.html&KBID=64393" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Adorama </a>| <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1183045-REG/tamron_aff012c700_sp_35mm_f_1_8_di.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://amzn.to/1PMU59p" target="_blank">Amazon</a></li>
<li>Tamron SP 45mm f/1.8 Di VC USD <a href="http://www.adorama.com/TM4518EOS.html&KBID=64393" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Adorama </a>| <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1183050-REG/tamron_aff013c700_sp_45mm_f_1_8_di.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://amzn.to/1LWvXmY" target="_blank">Amazon</a></li>
</ul>
<p> </p>
```


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Sep 7, 2015)

I would love to know if these work well with the C100 DPAF. I like to shoot handheld with fast primes and have always wanted something with IS/VC. The Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC is very finicky, unfortunately - not enough to trust. The Sigma arts work fine with DPAF....If these new tamrons can work with DPAF they are an instant buy for me.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Sep 7, 2015)

My excitement for these lenses just doubled.


----------



## MintChocs (Sep 7, 2015)

Who needs L when it's sharp wide open, has stabilisation. Win, win!


----------



## scyrene (Sep 7, 2015)

I welcome these, but having bought the Canon 35 f/2 IS this year, I won't be queuing up I'm afraid. It's good to see more lenses combining wide aperture and IS though - really useful for dimly lit events!


----------



## Peerke (Sep 7, 2015)

Looking at the pictures of the Canon, Tamron and Sigma, I can't help thinking this is not a very good test. First I ask myself why they use stabilisation when using a tripod? Second, the yellow can on the right side is very sharp in the canon picture, so if that is where the focal point is, the canon wins all the way.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 8, 2015)

Frankly this was far more inspiring than the sample images I saw from New York previously. The image quality looked very impressive in this review. No mention of focus speed/accuracy. That's something I will be looking closely in my review, because few people complain about the image quality from the Sigma ART 35 or 50, but many of us have complained about less than accurate (or consistent) AF performance. I've had good success with the Tamron lenses that I own, and I hope these will be no exception.

I should have them in a couple of weeks for review.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Sep 8, 2015)

Showing sharper results than the Sigma stopped down? Similar flare resistance? Hmmmmm.... I'd have to see more results confirming this. If true, that's extremely impressive.

But, I have a hard time believing any review that has nothing negative to take away from a review period.


----------



## switters (Sep 8, 2015)

I'm definitely interested... but have to say I would have been even more interested had they chosen 55mm instead of 45mm for the normal lens. When I was using 35mm on APS-C 1.6x I found 56mm FOV to be great for shooting people.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 8, 2015)

switters said:


> I'm definitely interested... but have to say I would have been even more interested had they chosen 55mm instead of 45mm for the normal lens. When I was using 35mm on APS-C 1.6x I found 56mm FOV to be great for shooting people.



Me, too. 55mm f/1.8 would have been VERY interesting to me. Tamron tells me that more primes are coming, but these first two share a 67mm front element (and probably a number of design similarities), which helps minimize engineering costs.

Now when the 85mm comes (assuming that it does), I will be very, very interested.


----------



## ScottyP (Sep 8, 2015)

35 and 45 kind of means they will have few customers who will pick up both because they are so very close. Had they spread them out better, they could expect to have lots of happy customers picking them both up. Why not 35 and 85? Or 24 and 50? Even 35 and 50 would tempt multiple purchases assuming they are good lenses.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Sep 8, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Frankly this was far more inspiring than the sample images I saw from New York previously. The image quality looked very impressive in this review. No mention of focus speed/accuracy. That's something I will be looking closely in my review, because few people complain about the image quality from the Sigma ART 35 or 50, but many of us have complained about less than accurate (or consistent) AF performance. I've had good success with the Tamron lenses that I own, and I hope these will be no exception.
> 
> I should have them in a couple of weeks for review.


Please add to your review the Canon 35mm f/2 IS, which I consider a very good lens. I have also considered the 35A but, in terms of weight and size I prefer the Canon one. Now, we have Tamron in the game


----------



## grainier (Sep 8, 2015)

I did not read the review, but I ctr+F'd through it to see if the talk about AF speed.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Sep 8, 2015)

I wonder if the next one will be a 90mm f/1.8.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Sep 8, 2015)

Peerke said:


> Looking at the pictures of the Canon, Tamron and Sigma, I can't help thinking this is not a very good test. First I ask myself why they use stabilisation when using a tripod? Second, the yellow can on the right side is very sharp in the canon picture, so if that is where the focal point is, the canon wins all the way.


Sure, the one item way off on the right hand side is what they focused on...

Field curvature is at play in this test and the 35 IS was tested at f/2 so there is perhaps a tiny bit more depth of field and sharpness which the Tamron and Sigma would be sacrificing to 35 IS. Looking at the peripheral area of the image is not going to give you a fair comparison especially at maximum aperture. 

The one thing I noticed is that the Canon 35 IS appears to have a slightly wider angle of view than the other two lenses at the focus distance that those comparison shots were taken at. I assume the Tamron will have some focus breathing and widen more as you get into the close focus ranges. 

Anyway I think the big take away from the comparison is that the Tamron is at the very least running with the best of them in terms of sharpness and clearly leading the pack in terms of low vignette (the corners are more than a stop brighter than the other lenses). Will be good to see some comprehensive AF tests to reinforce my positive first impressions.


----------



## mdflare (Sep 8, 2015)

I am a bit skeptical on all the claims the lens should have accomplished.
I would be all in for all this to be confirmed, but ...

It seems to me the test claims that Tamron has secretly found THE holy grail in a fairly deep explored range of lenses that no other should have found before. Zeiss,Canon,Sigma,Nikon,Samyang,...
A bold claim without hard measurements to back it up. And it even fitted an image stabilising unit in there too ???
As Kevin/LSXPhotog has already stated, the review even did not point out a single problem with the lens. Suspicious too.

Comparing to the Sigma A35mm.
It is ~180g lighter than the Sigma. It is slower 1.8 vs. 1.4. And now the Tamron claims to be:
-sharper then the sigma stopped down to 1.8
-has low vigneting despite the difference in weight 
and
-"Extremely high corner performance – sharp images even at the outer edges" (without comparison)
-despite the difference in weight it has an image stabilizing unit on top (more weight that is not glass)

I have trouble believing these claims out of 1 review without any negative point. The Test explicitly has no measurements to back it up. Without Measurements it isn´t possible to say if this is the worst copy of a sigma 35 compared to a maybe best of a new Tamron. This does not negate the Impression the Test might suggest, but it has no calibrated Data to back it up. 
Lets wait at for at least a second look before hopping on the party-train.


----------



## Ladislav (Sep 8, 2015)

I'm not so rich to buy a cheap product. Except this one is even not cheap.

Images look very good but they are all still. I'm afraid of its AF servo performance.

I was recently taking pictures of London's Notting Hill Carnival. I spent two days using 6D with AF servo and continuous shooting + Tamron 24-70/2.8 SP VC, Canon 50/1.8 STM, Canon 100/2.8 L IS. My settings was most of the time Manual set to: f2.8 (f2.0 on 50/1.8), 1/320, Auto ISO. 

I usually had sharp sequences when using Canon lenses while half of shots from Tamron were out of focus because Tamron was too slow to get/keep focus. This wasn't the first event when the Tamron failed me. I like the lens when used with one shot AF but it has too many limitations when your subject is not still. It was surprising for me to find out that STM lens beats Tamron's AF quality a big time.

Since I bought Tamron I'm still thinking about replacing it with Canon. It is twice as much expensive and doesn't have IS (that's the main reason why I haven't go for it yet because it is handy for still and landscape photography which I do more often) but if I didn't go with Tamron in the first place, it would cost me less (as I will never get back full amount I invested to Tamron) and I wouldn't lose many good moments just because AF went wrong. Thus the initial statement ...


----------



## DomTomLondon (Sep 8, 2015)

Ladislav said:


> I usually had sharp sequences when using Canon lenses while half of shots from Tamron were out of focus because Tamron was too slow to get/keep focus.



This is why I returned my 24-70VC Tamron lens after a few weeks shooting with it, it was great for still objects and a great price. but the VC acted a bit strange, when it would engage, and I found AF not very consistent with moving subjects.
(I have a 6 and 8 year old, and they don't stay still for very long)

I ended up getting the Canon 24-70II. Yes it's expensive, but it just works.


----------



## jd7 (Sep 8, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> switters said:
> 
> 
> > I'm definitely interested... but have to say I would have been even more interested had they chosen 55mm instead of 45mm for the normal lens. When I was using 35mm on APS-C 1.6x I found 56mm FOV to be great for shooting people.
> ...



+1. I'd have been more interested in 55mm too, or even just a 50.

That said, I'm not sold on f/1.8 at these focal lengths. I have the canon 35/2 IS as a small, light prime, but otherwise if I'm going to get a prime at that sort of focal length I'm really looking for f/1.4. I suppose the Tamron 35 could replace the 35/2 IS, but it's only a third of a stop wider aperture and it's quite a bit bigger and heavier, so it's not such a good fit for the role of small, light prime ... And if I'm not going small and light then I think I'd be more tempted by the sigma 35 art. Still, will be interesting to see more reviews of the Tamron twins (ok, so they're not identical twins, but they do look a lot alike). Maybe the IQ will turn out to be so good I'll have to reconsider.


----------



## kubelik (Sep 8, 2015)

I've got the 35mm f/2 IS so not exactly clamoring for these lenses, but am still intrigued on principle. I like the fact that Sigma is bringing some real competition to Canon, and Tamron upping their game is also good for everyone whether or not you buy their products. I could see myself letting go of the incredible compactness of my shorty-40 for the Tamron 45mm f/1.8 as a replacement for my Canon 50mm f/1.4 that I sold off last year.

question I have to anyone familiar with Tamron lenses: does the focus ring rotate in the Canon direction or the Nikon direction?

I do want to see either LensRentals or The Digital Picture put up some legitimate tests before getting really excited about these. I don't understand when reviewers go "we only care about performance in the real world! but ... we'll also do a sloppily conducted sharpness test to create the illusion of validating our field observations". if you really only care about real world performance, then just stick to your guns. if you're going to provide empirical data points, then make sure it's not junk data. just a pet peeve of mine... end rant.


----------



## Rudeofus (Sep 8, 2015)

mdflare said:


> A bold claim without hard measurements to back it up. And it even fitted an image stabilising unit in there too ???
> As Kevin/LSXPhotog has already stated, the review even did not point out a single problem with the lens. Suspicious too.



I found it particularly amusing, how the review raved about corner to corner sharpness of these lenses, even on a full frame high megapixel 5Ds. This recent post shows MTF data, which tells a very different story, especially for the new 35mm lens.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Sep 8, 2015)

Rudeofus said:


> mdflare said:
> 
> 
> > A bold claim without hard measurements to back it up. And it even fitted an image stabilising unit in there too ???
> ...


Define acceptable sharpness


----------



## Luds34 (Sep 8, 2015)

DomTomLondon said:


> Ladislav said:
> 
> 
> > I usually had sharp sequences when using Canon lenses while half of shots from Tamron were out of focus because Tamron was too slow to get/keep focus.
> ...



Yes, I've noticed that on the Tamron 150-600 as well. The VC engages in a odd, unpredictable delay. Well, unpredictable in that I have not quite figured out the quirks. I'm suspicious that BBF isn't helping either or something. I haven't used the lens enough to have it all figured out. So if I really want a high keeper rate (and if there is enough light) I just kick up the shutter speed and it works well.

I think the focus works very well! I at first thought the focus was missing on some shots, but when I saw other shots where it "missed really bad" and noticed it was camera shake motion blur I was able to realize it was the VC and not the focus.

Back to the 35mm comparison. Zoomed in on the tiny text on the side of the 5DsR box where you can go back and forth between the Tamron and the Sigma, the Tamron is clearly far, far, sharper then the Sigma. I can't imagine that the difference is this drastic. So I'm wondering if a soft/bad copy of the Sigma, or the focus was off. Were they focusing in live view at all?


----------



## Luds34 (Sep 8, 2015)

kubelik said:


> question I have to anyone familiar with Tamron lenses: does the focus ring rotate in the Canon direction or the Nikon direction?



Pretty sure it's the Nikon way. For sure the zoom is the "wrong" (Nikon) way. And I think focus is as well as if memory serves when I use to focus my old 17-50 manually for video I had to train my brain to go against its normal convention.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Sep 8, 2015)

Luds34 said:


> kubelik said:
> 
> 
> > question I have to anyone familiar with Tamron lenses: does the focus ring rotate in the Canon direction or the Nikon direction?
> ...


From the image infinity appears to be on the right hand side so the same as Canon.


----------



## Rudeofus (Sep 8, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> Rudeofus said:
> 
> 
> > mdflare said:
> ...



A severe falloff of the [email protected] curve tow thirds towards the corner may be acceptable to many including myself, but I would definitely not call this corner to corner sharpness on a 5Ds. The lens may be ok, but the review sounds bogus, unless the author received a spectacular sample that outperformed the posted MTF curve by a wide margin.


----------



## Luds34 (Sep 8, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> From the image infinity appears to be on the right hand side so the same as Canon.



Good catch. It would appear that they have "fixed" it from older lenses.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Sep 9, 2015)

Rudeofus said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Rudeofus said:
> ...


Here is an article on Field Curvature:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/09/field-curvature-and-stopping-down

By comparing the Tamron and Sigma...
If you look at the yellow background flowers in the top right corner you'll see the Tamron is sharper than the Sigma (both being shot at the f/1.8 setting). If you look at the wood grain on the table towards the corners the sigma appears to have sharper foreground. The Sigma's sharper foreground and more blurred background points to field curvature towards the foreground. But from Lensrental measurements we know that the Sigma has incredible flatness of field. So isn't the logical conclusion then that the Tamron has strong field curvature towards the background like the current Canon 35mm f/1.4L?

My guess is that field curvature is what makes the chart look worse than the lens feels to perform in practice. Test charts are flat, the real world has depth and from looking at the photographer's portfolio, he shoots anything but flat subjects


----------



## Rudeofus (Sep 9, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> Rudeofus said:
> 
> 
> > StudentOfLight said:
> ...



That's a very plausible explanation for the discrepancy between review and published MTF chart. But how would this work in real world shots if you position your main subject matter on one side? What if field curvature is aperture dependent, like spherical aberrations in the 50L?


----------



## StudentOfLight (Sep 9, 2015)

Rudeofus said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Rudeofus said:
> ...


Hopefully Lensrentals will get ahold of a batch of lenses soon and run their battery of tests.


----------



## kubelik (Sep 9, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> From the image infinity appears to be on the right hand side so the same as Canon.



Studentoflight, thanks for that info! I feel silly now, honestly never thought to check by just looking at the focus distance window... but will do so in the future ;D


----------



## drjlo (Sep 9, 2015)

Got my fingers crossed the Tamrons have less AF quirks than the Sigmas. If so, at these prices, game on 8)


----------



## StudentOfLight (Sep 9, 2015)

drjlo said:


> Got my fingers crossed the Tamrons have less AF quirks than the Sigmas. If so, at these prices, game on 8)


AF accuracy has not really been an issue with my Tamron zooms. For me the difference in AF speed however is noticeable. The zooms appear to have a two-stage focus behavior.
1) Quick jump
2) Fine adjustment

My Canon L primes on the other hand just seem to go straight to where they need to in one clear movement. I'm hoping these Tamrons (being primes lenses) can behave like my Canon L primes with decisive AF drive performance.

My one conceptual concern is the close-focus design. While close focus is incredibly useful, I hope it doesn't compromise their general focus speed and behavior. My 100mm non-L macro and 135L for example at least have limit switches to prevent racking through the close-focus range. With close-focus excluded, they lock focus blindingly fast in the normal-infinity range. I'm hoping that since these Tamrons are wider-angle lenses (and not really macro lenses) that this will end up not really being an issue.


----------



## andrewflo (Sep 11, 2015)

kubelik said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > From the image infinity appears to be on the right hand side so the same as Canon.
> ...



Agreed great find! Just to confirm, I took a quick look at my SP 24-70 and it is indeed the opposite (infinity is to the left on the SP 24-70).

Would make shooting a mixed bag of Canon and Tamron lenses just a tiny bit more convenient if they all zoomed/focused in the same direction


----------



## StudentOfLight (Oct 19, 2015)

The Digital Picture has uploaded crops of the SP 45mm f/1.8 VC taken on the 5Ds R. I've included a comparison with the Canon 35mm f/2 IS USM below as this appears to be the class of Canon lens that Tamron is targeting with these new-look VC primes:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1004&Camera=979&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=824&Sample=0&CameraComp=979&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
The 45mm has its flaws as discussed in various online reviews but puts in a pretty decent performance at maximum aperture. I'm looking forward to seeing how the 35mm performs. I'm ready to sell my 35L but not yet sure if I should go the Tamron route or the Canon 35L II route. :'(


----------



## StudentOfLight (Dec 8, 2015)

After some nagging (from people like me) Roger at Lensrentals has tested the Tamron SP 35mm and 45mm f/1.8 VC USD lenses. Sample variation is very good for the 35mm and outstanding for the 45mm.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 8, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> After some nagging (from people like me) Roger at Lensrentals has tested the Tamron SP 35mm and 45mm f/1.8 VC USD lenses. Sample variation is very good for the 35mm and outstanding for the 45mm.



Interesting. Where did you get that information?


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 8, 2015)

Sorry, that last question was lazy. I checked out the site and here's the link:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/12/tamron-f1-8-vc-prime-lenses-sharpness-mtf-curves

Interesting stuff.


----------



## Flamingtree (Dec 23, 2015)

I just picked up the new Tamron 35.

I was trying to decide between it and the Sigma 35 A. The two lenses are the same price in here in Australia. I went for the Tamron mainly because of the close focusing ability. To me IS vs f1.4 was even and weather sealing is not really an issue in Western Australia. 

Its been really hot here in Perth (40 degrees C) for the last couple of days so haven't had much of a chance to run it through its paces apart from taking photos of the dog mooching around under the air conditioner.

This is my first non Canon lens. Based on my limited testing AF wise I would say its comparable to my canon lenses - on my 7D. So far so good.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jan 7, 2016)

More curious number popping out of DXO...

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Tamron-SP-45mm-F18-Di-VC-USD-Model-F013-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R-versus-Tamron-SP-45mm-F18-Di-VC-USD-Model-F013-Nikon__1594_1009_1595_0

Apparently the SP 45mm resolves more detail on a 36MP D800E than on a 50MP 5Ds-R.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 7, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> More curious number popping out of DXO...
> 
> http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Tamron-SP-45mm-F18-Di-VC-USD-Model-F013-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R-versus-Tamron-SP-45mm-F18-Di-VC-USD-Model-F013-Nikon__1594_1009_1595_0
> 
> Apparently the SP 45mm resolves more detail on a 36MP D800E than on a 50MP 5Ds-R.



DXO can always squeeze more resolution out of a Nikon or Sony sensor than a Canon. It's a special gift.

In all seriousness, though, the one number that disappoints among a lot of great information is the rather poor light transmission of the 45mm f/1.8. I have to confess that I'm not really seeing it in real world use, and the lens seems to be exposing appropriately. I wonder if this is one of negatives of having shared design with the 35 VC - perhaps the 45 could have benefited from a larger front element than 67mm?

Here's a question for the physics experts. The Canon f/2 IS has a light transmission (t-stop) of f/2. The Tamron 35mm f/1.8 (according to DXO) has a t-stop of f/2.1. How does this work? Is it the difference in coatings and elements that maximize the amount of light coming through the aperture? How else could the larger aperture lens (1/3rd stop) have less light transmission?


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 7, 2016)

One other curious thing from that comparison at DXO. They rated the light transmission, vignette, and chromatic aberrations differently for each camera system (all of these scores better for Canon), and then sharpness higher on the Nikon mount. How does a different lens mount result in all of these differences?


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jan 7, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> One other curious thing from that comparison at DXO. They rated the light transmission, vignette, and chromatic aberrations differently for each camera system (all of these scores better for Canon), and then sharpness higher on the Nikon mount. How does a different lens mount result in all of these differences?


It boggles the mind...

I think Adam pointed out that sensor stack design might influence transmission and vignette, but I haven't seen any concrete explanation that this is the case.

Also, IRRC 3rd party lenses tested on D800E/D810 generally have less vignette than the on the 5Ds-R. It's curious that the Tamron is worse on the Nikon, curious indeed. Perhaps they have a bad sample, or they mixed up some numbers in the lab.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Feb 19, 2016)

Hahaha, ohhhh DxO. Making things up as they go right in front of everyone and people just accept it as valid scientific testing.

This one stop gets me rolling. How is this score even possible when the Canon was clearly better in their testing? Haha


----------

