This topic is in the 2019 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2019Sigma 35mm f/1.2 ART vs Tamron SP 35mm f/1.4
p.1 #1Sigma 35mm f/1.2 ART vs Tamron SP 35mm f/1.4
Here is a center, mid-frame, and edge comparison I performed today @ infinity between the Sigma 35mm f/1.2 and Tamron f/1.4. All are on the A7r IV. Conditions were somewhat overcast but lighting intensity was constantly changing so exposure was adjusted/matched in post, although due to the changing light some highlights were lost at points.
100% Crop Composite: Sigma 35mm f/1.2 ART vs Tamron f/1.4
Full-Sized Images:
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/1.2
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/1.4
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/2
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/2.8
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/4
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/5.6
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/8
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/1.4
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/2
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/2.8
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/4
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/5.6
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/8
Bokeh Comparison
Bokeh Ball and Sunstar Comp: 100% Crop of 20% reduced image size
Light Transmission Comparison
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-7qV9grq/0/469aa284/O/i-7qV9grq.png
Vignetting comparison (Photo of Test Setup)
Measurements:
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-VXKZHqV/0/50a23bf2/O/i-VXKZHqV.png
Vignetting Animations:
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-23kW9L9/0/98dd51d6/O/i-23kW9L9.gif
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-M8J8N5s/0/f7df48cc/O/i-M8J8N5s.gif
Edited on Dec 29, 2019 at 01:07 PM · View previous versions
100% Crop Composite: Sigma 35mm f/1.2 ART vs Tamron f/1.4
Full-Sized Images:
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/1.2
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/1.4
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/2
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/2.8
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/4
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/5.6
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/8
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/1.4
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/2
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/2.8
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/4
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/5.6
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/8
Bokeh Comparison
Bokeh Ball and Sunstar Comp: 100% Crop of 20% reduced image size
Light Transmission Comparison
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-7qV9grq/0/469aa284/O/i-7qV9grq.png
Vignetting comparison (Photo of Test Setup)
Measurements:
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-VXKZHqV/0/50a23bf2/O/i-VXKZHqV.png
Vignetting Animations:
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-23kW9L9/0/98dd51d6/O/i-23kW9L9.gif
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-M8J8N5s/0/f7df48cc/O/i-M8J8N5s.gif
Edited on Dec 29, 2019 at 01:07 PM · View previous versions
Dec 27, 2019 at 04:31 PM
p.1 #2Sigma 35mm f/1.2 ART vs Tamron SP 35mm f/1.4
Thanks for sharing. Probably confirms what the LensRental tests tell us - they are neck and neck in the centre (if anything perhaps the Sigma even comes out a teeny bit sharper), and a slight advantage to the Tamron in the corners, but really to my eyes they are as good as each other for all practical purposes.
I would add that perhaps all of the crops especially wide open look less sharp than I was expecting, given all the amazing things I've heard about both lenses. Do you think it might be explained by haze or the focus being slightly off? Or possibly I was expecting too much from all the hype. Still a pretty amazing performance for 1.2 or 1.4 for both lenses.
I would add that perhaps all of the crops especially wide open look less sharp than I was expecting, given all the amazing things I've heard about both lenses. Do you think it might be explained by haze or the focus being slightly off? Or possibly I was expecting too much from all the hype. Still a pretty amazing performance for 1.2 or 1.4 for both lenses.
Dec 27, 2019 at 04:45 PM
p.1 #3Sigma 35mm f/1.2 ART vs Tamron SP 35mm f/1.4
snapsy wrote:
Here is a center, mid-frame, and edge comparison I performed today @ infinity between the Sigma 35mm f/1.2 and Tamron f/1.4. All are on the A7r IV. Conditions were somewhat overcast but lighting intensity was constantly changing so exposure was adjusted/matched in post, although due to the changing light some highlights were lost at points.
Image: Sigma 35mm f/1.2 ART vs Tamron f/1.4, 100% Crop Composite
Hi Adam, thank you for the comparison. Frankly though, the main reason for my getting and using that lens, the Sigma, that is, is more for environmental portraits and not for landscape. With that said, I would be more interested in seeing a comparison more in the focusing distance range more suitable for that purpose. I would say, somewhere between 5 and 15 feet or so.
Here is a center, mid-frame, and edge comparison I performed today @ infinity between the Sigma 35mm f/1.2 and Tamron f/1.4. All are on the A7r IV. Conditions were somewhat overcast but lighting intensity was constantly changing so exposure was adjusted/matched in post, although due to the changing light some highlights were lost at points.
Image: Sigma 35mm f/1.2 ART vs Tamron f/1.4, 100% Crop Composite
Hi Adam, thank you for the comparison. Frankly though, the main reason for my getting and using that lens, the Sigma, that is, is more for environmental portraits and not for landscape. With that said, I would be more interested in seeing a comparison more in the focusing distance range more suitable for that purpose. I would say, somewhere between 5 and 15 feet or so.
Dec 27, 2019 at 04:54 PM
p.1 #4Sigma 35mm f/1.2 ART vs Tamron SP 35mm f/1.4
ryanli wrote:
I would add that perhaps all of the crops especially wide open look less sharp than I was expecting, given all the amazing things I've heard about both lenses. Do you think it might be explained by haze or the focus being slightly off? Or possibly I was expecting too much from all the hype. Still a pretty amazing performance for 1.2 or 1.4 for both lenses.
I think it's just the subject matter that happened to be at the dead center of the frame. I just updated the OP with the full-sized images - you can look around the center area and find more amenable subject matter.
I would add that perhaps all of the crops especially wide open look less sharp than I was expecting, given all the amazing things I've heard about both lenses. Do you think it might be explained by haze or the focus being slightly off? Or possibly I was expecting too much from all the hype. Still a pretty amazing performance for 1.2 or 1.4 for both lenses.
I think it's just the subject matter that happened to be at the dead center of the frame. I just updated the OP with the full-sized images - you can look around the center area and find more amenable subject matter.
Dec 27, 2019 at 06:34 PM
p.1 #5Sigma 35mm f/1.2 ART vs Tamron SP 35mm f/1.4
AGeoJO wrote:
Image: Sigma 35mm f/1.2 ART vs Tamron f/1.4, 100% Crop CompositeHi Adam, thank you for the comparison. Frankly though, the main reason for my getting and using that lens, the Sigma, that is, is more for environmental portraits and not for landscape. With that said, I would be more interested in seeing a comparison more in the focusing distance range more suitable for that purpose. I would say, somewhere between 5 and 15 feet or so.
Hi Joshua, I'll try to do something like that in the next few days.
snapsy wrote
Here is a center, mid-frame, and edge comparison I performed today @ infinity between the Sigma 35mm f/1.2 and Tamron f/1.4. All are on the A7r IV. Conditions were somewhat overcast but lighting intensity was constantly changing so exposure was adjusted/matched in post, although due to the changing light some highlights were lost at points.Image: Sigma 35mm f/1.2 ART vs Tamron f/1.4, 100% Crop Composite
Hi Joshua, I'll try to do something like that in the next few days.
Dec 27, 2019 at 06:35 PM
p.1 #6Sigma 35mm f/1.2 ART vs Tamron SP 35mm f/1.4
Thanks for the crops! I could be copy variation but it looks like the Tamron is noticeably better off-axis.
It would be great to see some rendering comparisons at f/1.4 at close and mid-distance.
It would be great to see some rendering comparisons at f/1.4 at close and mid-distance.
Dec 27, 2019 at 06:57 PM
p.1 #7Sigma 35mm f/1.2 ART vs Tamron SP 35mm f/1.4
Fred Miranda wrote:
Thanks for the crops! I could be copy variation but it looks like the Tamron is noticeably better off-axis.
It would be great to see some rendering comparisons at f/1.4 at close and mid-distance.
It roughly aligns with Roger's measured MTFs of both @ f/1.4. The Tamron has higher MTF30 and much tighter tag/sags toward the edges/corners:
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/media/2019/09/SigTamcomp.png
Thanks for the crops! I could be copy variation but it looks like the Tamron is noticeably better off-axis.
It would be great to see some rendering comparisons at f/1.4 at close and mid-distance.
It roughly aligns with Roger's measured MTFs of both @ f/1.4. The Tamron has higher MTF30 and much tighter tag/sags toward the edges/corners:
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/media/2019/09/SigTamcomp.png
Dec 27, 2019 at 07:08 PM
p.1 #8Sigma 35mm f/1.2 ART vs Tamron SP 35mm f/1.4
I performed similar tests, for f1.2 and f1.4 to simulate portrait distance focusing on a mannequin at typical portrait distances.
Close to infinity for landscapes at f4-11.
Both lenses were as sharp as each other in the centre for the first test and edges for the second, if one was sharper than the other it was insignificant and within minor copy variation tolerances.
The Sigma wins at painting a nicer portrait, it's native, it's slightly faster and I trust the brand more for long term reliability.
The Tamron might make some landscapers happier, but in my opinion it's hardly worth it for the slight edge it may provide, I'd recommend a slower manual focus lens that will be lighter and cheaper.
The Sigma is a do it all, heavy and large, but a master of environmental portraits, low light street and stopped down landscapes.
Close to infinity for landscapes at f4-11.
Both lenses were as sharp as each other in the centre for the first test and edges for the second, if one was sharper than the other it was insignificant and within minor copy variation tolerances.
The Sigma wins at painting a nicer portrait, it's native, it's slightly faster and I trust the brand more for long term reliability.
The Tamron might make some landscapers happier, but in my opinion it's hardly worth it for the slight edge it may provide, I'd recommend a slower manual focus lens that will be lighter and cheaper.
The Sigma is a do it all, heavy and large, but a master of environmental portraits, low light street and stopped down landscapes.
Dec 27, 2019 at 07:50 PM
p.1 #9Sigma 35mm f/1.2 ART vs Tamron SP 35mm f/1.4
Thanks for sharing these tests and also providing the full resolution samples in addition to the crops. I too have performed a similar test against the Tamron and thus was very interested in your results. In general, they match very well with mine. I would, of course, be inclined to want the Tamron over the Sigma, since it is both lighter and cheaper and according to Lensrentals, better in terms of MTF performance. But as I've found, this is not the case.
It is clear now, in your full-resolution jpegs, that your Sigma 35 is focused nearer than your Tamron is, and due to its field curvature bending slightly nearer towards the edges, it gives an impression that its off-axis performance is not as good as the Tamron. In fact, the mid-field performance is noticeably better for the Sigma than the Tamron. And stopped down to f/5.6, the Sigma is again better off-axis than the Tamron when the depth of field allows the edge details to finally come into focus.
My own tests demonstrate as much. Especially at f/2 and f/2.8, which is not revealed in Lensrentals's MTF testing, the Sigma is definitely better than the Tamron. The Sigma is also better at preserving the roundness of stars (my primary use for this lens) off-axis, as well as having more significant improvement in CA when stopped down and slightly less vignetting, but the Sigma has more distortion. I also agree with others that the bokeh of the Sigma is smoother than the Tamron, though I don't need the Sigma for this purpose.
Your Sigma and/or your a7R IV also exhibits some mild swing (tilt is not possible to be judged with this camera orientation for this subject matter), with the focus plane focusing nearer on the left edge than the right edge. Since you took the crops from the right edge, it is actually in the Sigma's favour slightly, despite it being front focussed, though its contribution appears to be less than the focus distance error, thus still giving the edge to the Tamron at wider apertures. The focus swing effect is relatively mild, which I estimate to be under 10 microns worth at the sensor's edge. A colleague and I have noticed and are able to ascertain though indirect measurement that our Sony sensors are not parallel relative to their mounts, in my case by about 20 microns or so in both swing and tilt directions. The error introduced by the lens may negate to some degree, the camera's error, or combine to make it worse. For the purposes of astrophotography specifically, we require the total system crookedness to be under 20 microns when shooting at f/2.8, wider apertures demand more parallelism.
Ideally, we want our cameras straight to under 5 microns, so we may be able to successfully shop for lenses and not inadvertently reject perfect copies due to focus swing and tilt errors. Sony cameras use 50-micron shims to adjust the levelling of the sensors relative to the mount, but since the shim positions are twice the length and width of the sensor, they act effectively as 25-micron shims, so the maximum error they can shim to is half that, about 12.5 microns. Unfortunately, after looking at four a7R II cameras, we are seeing tilt and swing errors usually twice that, or more. An early assumption was that cameras with spring-tensioned mounted sensors like many of Canon's and some of Nikon's could theoretically be levelled to near-perfectly straight, however, I checked my old Canon 5D II and found this to also not be true (it was worse than my Sony). Don't assume that your sensors are parallel to your camera's mount!
My own Sigma 35 1.2 has about 25 microns of swing and about 10-12 microns of tilt.
It is clear now, in your full-resolution jpegs, that your Sigma 35 is focused nearer than your Tamron is, and due to its field curvature bending slightly nearer towards the edges, it gives an impression that its off-axis performance is not as good as the Tamron. In fact, the mid-field performance is noticeably better for the Sigma than the Tamron. And stopped down to f/5.6, the Sigma is again better off-axis than the Tamron when the depth of field allows the edge details to finally come into focus.
My own tests demonstrate as much. Especially at f/2 and f/2.8, which is not revealed in Lensrentals's MTF testing, the Sigma is definitely better than the Tamron. The Sigma is also better at preserving the roundness of stars (my primary use for this lens) off-axis, as well as having more significant improvement in CA when stopped down and slightly less vignetting, but the Sigma has more distortion. I also agree with others that the bokeh of the Sigma is smoother than the Tamron, though I don't need the Sigma for this purpose.
Your Sigma and/or your a7R IV also exhibits some mild swing (tilt is not possible to be judged with this camera orientation for this subject matter), with the focus plane focusing nearer on the left edge than the right edge. Since you took the crops from the right edge, it is actually in the Sigma's favour slightly, despite it being front focussed, though its contribution appears to be less than the focus distance error, thus still giving the edge to the Tamron at wider apertures. The focus swing effect is relatively mild, which I estimate to be under 10 microns worth at the sensor's edge. A colleague and I have noticed and are able to ascertain though indirect measurement that our Sony sensors are not parallel relative to their mounts, in my case by about 20 microns or so in both swing and tilt directions. The error introduced by the lens may negate to some degree, the camera's error, or combine to make it worse. For the purposes of astrophotography specifically, we require the total system crookedness to be under 20 microns when shooting at f/2.8, wider apertures demand more parallelism.
Ideally, we want our cameras straight to under 5 microns, so we may be able to successfully shop for lenses and not inadvertently reject perfect copies due to focus swing and tilt errors. Sony cameras use 50-micron shims to adjust the levelling of the sensors relative to the mount, but since the shim positions are twice the length and width of the sensor, they act effectively as 25-micron shims, so the maximum error they can shim to is half that, about 12.5 microns. Unfortunately, after looking at four a7R II cameras, we are seeing tilt and swing errors usually twice that, or more. An early assumption was that cameras with spring-tensioned mounted sensors like many of Canon's and some of Nikon's could theoretically be levelled to near-perfectly straight, however, I checked my old Canon 5D II and found this to also not be true (it was worse than my Sony). Don't assume that your sensors are parallel to your camera's mount!
My own Sigma 35 1.2 has about 25 microns of swing and about 10-12 microns of tilt.
Dec 27, 2019 at 10:37 PM
p.1 #10Sigma 35mm f/1.2 ART vs Tamron SP 35mm f/1.4
Frankly these lenses are so close in MTF and general resolution across the field that that simply is no reason to choose between them. Yes there are differences, but not wholes image quality differences.
The reasons to choose are really whether the f1.2 and possibly better eye-AF performance are more important that the size and maybe cost benefits of the Tamron.
For me, the fact that the Sigma is completely usable at f1.2 is a game changer for enviro portraits. F 1.2 is bragging for longer lenses: if anything it makes the DOF unusably thin.
But for a 35MM lens it gives you the look of a longer lens, with the angle of view of a wide, and that's a unique and lovely thing.
For landscape or other stopped down use, I'd want something smaller than *either* of these lenses.
But if you care more about size, and like the look of the Tamron, it's obviously a great choice, and as Roger says on average by a tiny margin measurably better (note that he shows averages; likely there are Sigmas better than Tamrons and vice versa). But also, as he notes, not better that you'll every see in a photograph.
The reasons to choose are really whether the f1.2 and possibly better eye-AF performance are more important that the size and maybe cost benefits of the Tamron.
For me, the fact that the Sigma is completely usable at f1.2 is a game changer for enviro portraits. F 1.2 is bragging for longer lenses: if anything it makes the DOF unusably thin.
But for a 35MM lens it gives you the look of a longer lens, with the angle of view of a wide, and that's a unique and lovely thing.
For landscape or other stopped down use, I'd want something smaller than *either* of these lenses.
But if you care more about size, and like the look of the Tamron, it's obviously a great choice, and as Roger says on average by a tiny margin measurably better (note that he shows averages; likely there are Sigmas better than Tamrons and vice versa). But also, as he notes, not better that you'll every see in a photograph.
Dec 27, 2019 at 11:29 PM
p.1 #11Sigma 35mm f/1.2 ART vs Tamron SP 35mm f/1.4
Tamron seems a winner in this test in the corners at f1.4 and f2 not only in sharpness but also in overall rendering (micro contrast) and color (seems more natural to me). The Sigma images seems somewhat paled in comparison. At f2.8, Sigma almost catches up in the corners (better in some areas but not in other areas). So unless as some other people have mentioned that something might have gone wrong in this test like focusing at different distances), Tamron seems a better lens at least at this distance range and at wider apertures.
Considering it is significantly less expensive, quite lighter and smaller, if it was a native Sony lens, I would have bought it.
Considering it is significantly less expensive, quite lighter and smaller, if it was a native Sony lens, I would have bought it.
Dec 28, 2019 at 12:11 AM
p.1 #12Sigma 35mm f/1.2 ART vs Tamron SP 35mm f/1.4
snapsy wrote:
Here is a center, mid-frame, and edge comparison I performed today @ infinity between the Sigma 35mm f/1.2 and Tamron f/1.4. All are on the A7r IV. Conditions were somewhat overcast but lighting intensity was constantly changing so exposure was adjusted/matched in post, although due to the changing light some highlights were lost at points.
100% Crop Composite: Sigma 35mm f/1.2 ART vs Tamron f/1.4
Full-Sized Images:
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/1.2
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/1.4
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/2
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/2.8
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/4
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/5.6
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/8
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/1.4
Tamron 35mm SP @
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/2.8
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/4
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/5.6
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/8
...Show more →
Thanks for comparing your copies.
Similar to some others here, I could imagine the focus point to be slightly different. There is a weird jump in sharpness from f1.4 to f2 in the midfield, too, where the Sigma not only drastically improves acuity over f1.4 but also jumps ahead of the Tamron in my opinion.
The corners at f1.4 are indeed weaker for the Sigma, but it improves fast and surpasses the Tamron here, too, after f4.
Overall I see your Sigma lens to be the stronger of both. At least on par in the center, better in the midfield after f2 and in my personal opinion better in the corners from f4 on. Maybe field curvature is a factor here, too.
We should remark the fact that it is a comparison at 100% on a 61MP sensor. Differences are probably minor when using an A9 or A7riii.
Here is a center, mid-frame, and edge comparison I performed today @ infinity between the Sigma 35mm f/1.2 and Tamron f/1.4. All are on the A7r IV. Conditions were somewhat overcast but lighting intensity was constantly changing so exposure was adjusted/matched in post, although due to the changing light some highlights were lost at points.
100% Crop Composite: Sigma 35mm f/1.2 ART vs Tamron f/1.4
Full-Sized Images:
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/1.2
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/1.4
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/2
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/2.8
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/4
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/5.6
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/8
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/1.4
Tamron 35mm SP @
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/2.8
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/4
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/5.6
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/8
...Show more →
Thanks for comparing your copies.
Similar to some others here, I could imagine the focus point to be slightly different. There is a weird jump in sharpness from f1.4 to f2 in the midfield, too, where the Sigma not only drastically improves acuity over f1.4 but also jumps ahead of the Tamron in my opinion.
The corners at f1.4 are indeed weaker for the Sigma, but it improves fast and surpasses the Tamron here, too, after f4.
Overall I see your Sigma lens to be the stronger of both. At least on par in the center, better in the midfield after f2 and in my personal opinion better in the corners from f4 on. Maybe field curvature is a factor here, too.
We should remark the fact that it is a comparison at 100% on a 61MP sensor. Differences are probably minor when using an A9 or A7riii.
Dec 28, 2019 at 02:16 AM
p.1 #13Sigma 35mm f/1.2 ART vs Tamron SP 35mm f/1.4
For me the Tamron is only $100 less expensive than the Sigma as I paid $1400 and $1500 respectively.
That as well as its size and length advantage are mitigated by the adaptor that's necessary.
Also, I'm not a landscaper but capturing landscape images at f1.4 and expecting corners to look like 5.6? The Tamron, for landscapes seems to make no sense to me.
That as well as its size and length advantage are mitigated by the adaptor that's necessary.
Also, I'm not a landscaper but capturing landscape images at f1.4 and expecting corners to look like 5.6? The Tamron, for landscapes seems to make no sense to me.
Dec 28, 2019 at 04:07 AM
p.1 #14Sigma 35mm f/1.2 ART vs Tamron SP 35mm f/1.4
inksandpaper wrote:
It is clear now, in your full-resolution jpegs, that your Sigma 35 is focused nearer than your Tamron is, and due to its field curvature bending slightly nearer towards the edges, it gives an impression that its off-axis performance is not as good as the Tamron. In fact, the mid-field performance is noticeably better for the Sigma than the Tamron. And stopped down to f/5.6, the Sigma is again better off-axis than the Tamron when the depth of field allows the edge details to finally come into focus.
By dint of other comparisons I performed that day I had approx 5 images from each cameras at different AF acquisitions. For the Sigma images all five show similar focus, comparing both near and infinity objects in the frame. I saw the same differential in focus vs the Tamron you mentioned, where nearby objects (particularly near the center of the frame) were sharper on the Sigma. One would assume that should be focus/DOF related but I'll need to perform more tests to be sure.
inksandpaper wrote:
Your Sigma and/or your a7R IV also exhibits some mild swing (tilt is not possible to be judged with this camera orientation for this subject matter), with the focus plane focusing nearer on the left edge than the right edge. Since you took the crops from the right edge, it is actually in the Sigma's favour slightly, despite it being front focussed, though its contribution appears to be less than the focus distance error, thus still giving the edge to the Tamron at wider apertures.
I took centering/tilt test images as part of the sequence that day. Here is the Sigma @ f/1.2 in both normal and upside-down orientations - to my eye the lens looks quite well centered:
Sigma Centering Test @ f/1.2, Normal Orientation
Sigma Centering Test @ f/1.2, Upside-Down Orientation
It is clear now, in your full-resolution jpegs, that your Sigma 35 is focused nearer than your Tamron is, and due to its field curvature bending slightly nearer towards the edges, it gives an impression that its off-axis performance is not as good as the Tamron. In fact, the mid-field performance is noticeably better for the Sigma than the Tamron. And stopped down to f/5.6, the Sigma is again better off-axis than the Tamron when the depth of field allows the edge details to finally come into focus.
By dint of other comparisons I performed that day I had approx 5 images from each cameras at different AF acquisitions. For the Sigma images all five show similar focus, comparing both near and infinity objects in the frame. I saw the same differential in focus vs the Tamron you mentioned, where nearby objects (particularly near the center of the frame) were sharper on the Sigma. One would assume that should be focus/DOF related but I'll need to perform more tests to be sure.
inksandpaper wrote:
Your Sigma and/or your a7R IV also exhibits some mild swing (tilt is not possible to be judged with this camera orientation for this subject matter), with the focus plane focusing nearer on the left edge than the right edge. Since you took the crops from the right edge, it is actually in the Sigma's favour slightly, despite it being front focussed, though its contribution appears to be less than the focus distance error, thus still giving the edge to the Tamron at wider apertures.
I took centering/tilt test images as part of the sequence that day. Here is the Sigma @ f/1.2 in both normal and upside-down orientations - to my eye the lens looks quite well centered:
Sigma Centering Test @ f/1.2, Normal Orientation
Sigma Centering Test @ f/1.2, Upside-Down Orientation
Dec 28, 2019 at 08:19 AM
p.1 #15Sigma 35mm f/1.2 ART vs Tamron SP 35mm f/1.4
Holger wrote:
100% Crop Composite: Sigma 35mm f/1.2 ART vs Tamron f/1.4
Full-Sized Images:
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/1.2
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/1.4
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/2
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/2.8
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/4
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/5.6
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/8
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/1.4
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/2
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/2.8
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/4
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/5.6
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/8Thanks for comparing your copies.
Similar to some others here, I could imagine the focus point to be slightly different. There is a weird jump in sharpness from f1.4 to f2 in the midfield, too, where the Sigma not only drastically improves acuity over f1.4 but also jumps ahead of the Tamron in my opinion.
The corners at f1.4 are indeed weaker for the Sigma, but it improves fast and surpasses the Tamron here, too, after f4.
Overall I see your Sigma lens to be the stronger of both. At least on par in the center, better in the midfield after f2...Show more →
To my eye the Tamron is sharper at the edges up to and including f/4. At f/5.6 I see them as about equal. I didn't set up these shots for corner evaluation so the only corners available are those close to the camera and the aforementioned focus differences may invalidate those comparisons. As for midfield the Tamron looks noticeably stronger to me.
snapsy wrote
Here is a center, mid-frame, and edge comparison I performed today @ infinity between the Sigma 35mm f/1.2 and Tamron f/1.4. All are on the A7r IV. Conditions were somewhat overcast but lighting intensity was constantly changing so exposure was adjusted/matched in post, although due to the changing light some highlights were lost at points.100% Crop Composite: Sigma 35mm f/1.2 ART vs Tamron f/1.4
Full-Sized Images:
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/1.2
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/1.4
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/2
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/2.8
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/4
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/5.6
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/8
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/1.4
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/2
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/2.8
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/4
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/5.6
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/8
Similar to some others here, I could imagine the focus point to be slightly different. There is a weird jump in sharpness from f1.4 to f2 in the midfield, too, where the Sigma not only drastically improves acuity over f1.4 but also jumps ahead of the Tamron in my opinion.
The corners at f1.4 are indeed weaker for the Sigma, but it improves fast and surpasses the Tamron here, too, after f4.
Overall I see your Sigma lens to be the stronger of both. At least on par in the center, better in the midfield after f2...Show more →
To my eye the Tamron is sharper at the edges up to and including f/4. At f/5.6 I see them as about equal. I didn't set up these shots for corner evaluation so the only corners available are those close to the camera and the aforementioned focus differences may invalidate those comparisons. As for midfield the Tamron looks noticeably stronger to me.
Dec 28, 2019 at 08:24 AM
p.1 #16Sigma 35mm f/1.2 ART vs Tamron SP 35mm f/1.4
snapsy wrote:
100% Crop Composite: Sigma 35mm f/1.2 ART vs Tamron f/1.4
Full-Sized Images:
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/1.2
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/1.4
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/2
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/2.8
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/4
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/5.6
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/8
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/1.4
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/2
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/2.8
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/4
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/5.6
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/8Thanks for comparing your copies.
Similar to some others here, I could imagine the focus point to be slightly different. There is a weird jump in sharpness from f1.4 to f2 in the midfield, too, where the Sigma not only drastically improves acuity over f1.4 but also jumps ahead of the Tamron in my opinion.
The corners at f1.4 are indeed weaker for the Sigma, but it improves fast and surpasses the Tamron here, too, after f4.
Overall I see your Sigma lens to be the stronger of both. At least on par in the center, better in the midfield after f2 and in my personal opinion better in the corners from f4 on. Maybe field curvature is a factor here, too.
We should remark the fact that it is a comparison at 100% on a 61MP sensor. Differences are probably minor when using an A9 or A7riii.To my eye the Tamron is sharper at the edges up to and including f/4. At f/5.6 I see them as about equal. I didn't set up these shots for corner evaluation so the only corners available are those close to the camera and the aforementioned focus differences may invalidate those comparisons. As for midfield the Tamron looks noticeably stronger to me.
"As for midfield the Tamron looks noticeably stronger to me."
I can't see that from your composite crops, unless you mean only f1.4?
At f2 the Sigma catches up and the trees in your composite show significantly more details. However the Tamron shows a minimally sharper grey building in the back. Here field curvature maybe the culprit or different focus points?
For f2.8 and up the Sigma is very strong in the midfield region.
Holger wrote
snapsy wrote
Here is a center, mid-frame, and edge comparison I performed today @ infinity between the Sigma 35mm f/1.2 and Tamron f/1.4. All are on the A7r IV. Conditions were somewhat overcast but lighting intensity was constantly changing so exposure was adjusted/matched in post, although due to the changing light some highlights were lost at points.100% Crop Composite: Sigma 35mm f/1.2 ART vs Tamron f/1.4
Full-Sized Images:
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/1.2
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/1.4
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/2
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/2.8
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/4
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/5.6
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/8
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/1.4
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/2
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/2.8
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/4
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/5.6
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/8
Similar to some others here, I could imagine the focus point to be slightly different. There is a weird jump in sharpness from f1.4 to f2 in the midfield, too, where the Sigma not only drastically improves acuity over f1.4 but also jumps ahead of the Tamron in my opinion.
The corners at f1.4 are indeed weaker for the Sigma, but it improves fast and surpasses the Tamron here, too, after f4.
Overall I see your Sigma lens to be the stronger of both. At least on par in the center, better in the midfield after f2 and in my personal opinion better in the corners from f4 on. Maybe field curvature is a factor here, too.
We should remark the fact that it is a comparison at 100% on a 61MP sensor. Differences are probably minor when using an A9 or A7riii.
"As for midfield the Tamron looks noticeably stronger to me."
I can't see that from your composite crops, unless you mean only f1.4?
At f2 the Sigma catches up and the trees in your composite show significantly more details. However the Tamron shows a minimally sharper grey building in the back. Here field curvature maybe the culprit or different focus points?
For f2.8 and up the Sigma is very strong in the midfield region.
Dec 28, 2019 at 08:57 AM
p.1 #17Sigma 35mm f/1.2 ART vs Tamron SP 35mm f/1.4
Holger wrote:
100% Crop Composite: Sigma 35mm f/1.2 ART vs Tamron f/1.4
Full-Sized Images:
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/1.2
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/1.4
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/2
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/2.8
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/4
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/5.6
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/8
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/1.4
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/2
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/2.8
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/4
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/5.6
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/8Thanks for comparing your copies.
Similar to some others here, I could imagine the focus point to be slightly different. There is a weird jump in sharpness from f1.4 to f2 in the midfield, too, where the Sigma not only drastically improves acuity over f1.4 but also jumps ahead of the Tamron in my opinion.
The corners at f1.4 are indeed weaker for the Sigma, but it improves fast and surpasses the Tamron here, too, after f4.
Overall I see your Sigma lens to be the stronger of both. At least on par in the center, better in the midfield after f2 and in my personal opinion better in the corners from f4 on. Maybe field curvature is a factor here, too.
We should remark the fact that it is a comparison at 100% on a 61MP sensor. Differences are probably minor when using an A9 or A7riii.To my eye the Tamron is sharper at the edges up to and including f/4. At f/5.6 I see them as about equal. I didn't set up these shots for corner evaluation so the only corners available are those close to the camera and the aforementioned focus differences may invalidate those comparisons. As for midfield the Tamron looks noticeably stronger to me."As for midfield the Tamron looks noticeably stronger to me."
I can't see that from your composite crops, unless you mean only f1.4?
At f2 the Sigma catches up and the trees in your composite show significantly more details. However the Tamron shows a minimally sharper grey building in the back. Here field curvature maybe the culprit or different focus points?
For f2.8 and up the Sigma is very strong in the midfield region.
Sorry, for midfield I was looking at the f/1.4 images and missed how you wrote specifically at f/2 and beyond. Agree with that.
snapsy wrote
Holger wrote
snapsy wrote
Here is a center, mid-frame, and edge comparison I performed today @ infinity between the Sigma 35mm f/1.2 and Tamron f/1.4. All are on the A7r IV. Conditions were somewhat overcast but lighting intensity was constantly changing so exposure was adjusted/matched in post, although due to the changing light some highlights were lost at points.100% Crop Composite: Sigma 35mm f/1.2 ART vs Tamron f/1.4
Full-Sized Images:
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/1.2
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/1.4
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/2
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/2.8
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/4
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/5.6
Sigma 35mm ART @ f/8
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/1.4
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/2
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/2.8
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/4
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/5.6
Tamron 35mm SP @ f/8
Similar to some others here, I could imagine the focus point to be slightly different. There is a weird jump in sharpness from f1.4 to f2 in the midfield, too, where the Sigma not only drastically improves acuity over f1.4 but also jumps ahead of the Tamron in my opinion.
The corners at f1.4 are indeed weaker for the Sigma, but it improves fast and surpasses the Tamron here, too, after f4.
Overall I see your Sigma lens to be the stronger of both. At least on par in the center, better in the midfield after f2 and in my personal opinion better in the corners from f4 on. Maybe field curvature is a factor here, too.
We should remark the fact that it is a comparison at 100% on a 61MP sensor. Differences are probably minor when using an A9 or A7riii.
I can't see that from your composite crops, unless you mean only f1.4?
At f2 the Sigma catches up and the trees in your composite show significantly more details. However the Tamron shows a minimally sharper grey building in the back. Here field curvature maybe the culprit or different focus points?
For f2.8 and up the Sigma is very strong in the midfield region.
Sorry, for midfield I was looking at the f/1.4 images and missed how you wrote specifically at f/2 and beyond. Agree with that.
Dec 28, 2019 at 09:23 AM
p.1 #18Sigma 35mm f/1.2 ART vs Tamron SP 35mm f/1.4
Added a bokeh ball comparison to the OP, which also includes a bit of a sunstar comp.
Bokeh Ball and Sunstar Comp: 100% Crop of 20% reduced image size
Bokeh Ball and Sunstar Comp: 100% Crop of 20% reduced image size
Dec 28, 2019 at 01:16 PM
p.1 #19Sigma 35mm f/1.2 ART vs Tamron SP 35mm f/1.4
Light transmission comparison. Tested interior wall, defocused to infinity, sampled raw values at center of frame. Shutter speed is increased by same EV as relative aperture increase, so measured EVs should match across apertures for linear transmission case.
Lens are pretty much identical. Sigma shows a decrease of 0.25EV at f/1.2 vs f/1.4 in my spreadhseet, which means the measured EV difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4 is 0.25EV instead of the expected linear 0.5EV (ie, f/1.2 1/640 vs f/1.4 1/400 should yield a 0.0EV difference for the linear case vs actual measurement of 0.25 decrease). This may be partly due to sensor-based pixel vignetting.
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-7qV9grq/0/469aa284/O/i-7qV9grq.png
Lens are pretty much identical. Sigma shows a decrease of 0.25EV at f/1.2 vs f/1.4 in my spreadhseet, which means the measured EV difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4 is 0.25EV instead of the expected linear 0.5EV (ie, f/1.2 1/640 vs f/1.4 1/400 should yield a 0.0EV difference for the linear case vs actual measurement of 0.25 decrease). This may be partly due to sensor-based pixel vignetting.
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-7qV9grq/0/469aa284/O/i-7qV9grq.png
Dec 28, 2019 at 03:44 PM
p.1 #20Sigma 35mm f/1.2 ART vs Tamron SP 35mm f/1.4
Vignetting measurements
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-VXKZHqV/0/50a23bf2/O/i-VXKZHqV.png
Vignetting Animations:
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-23kW9L9/0/98dd51d6/O/i-23kW9L9.gif
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-M8J8N5s/0/f7df48cc/O/i-M8J8N5s.gif
Test Setup (Acrylic Plexiglass sheet 1/8" x 12" x 12" #2447):
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-sfZXdGx/0/4e855fa0/M/i-sfZXdGx-M.jpg
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-VXKZHqV/0/50a23bf2/O/i-VXKZHqV.png
Vignetting Animations:
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-23kW9L9/0/98dd51d6/O/i-23kW9L9.gif
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-M8J8N5s/0/f7df48cc/O/i-M8J8N5s.gif
Test Setup (Acrylic Plexiglass sheet 1/8" x 12" x 12" #2447):
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-sfZXdGx/0/4e855fa0/M/i-sfZXdGx-M.jpg
Dec 29, 2019 at 01:04 PM