The Tamron is pretty painful to focus manually, to the point where I just use AF. It takes a little turn before it actually starts focusing, and the image shifts a little when you turn the focus ring in the opposite direction.
It would have been nice for the Tamron to be more like the Sigma I series, I don't really have any complaints with their manual focus implementation.
realVivek wrote:
Currently, here, the Tamron is 1/4th the price of the Cosina and comes with a 5 year warranty. They should have made it a fully manual lens.
... and don't forget the problems with repairs with Voigtlander lenses.
I really love the Voigtlander lenses (as well as those from Zeiss), colors, rendering, three-dimensional image impression,... and unlike Zeiss, the Voigtlander lenses look/feel (subjectively) more beautiful and are more practical to use.
In contrast, my experience with Voigtlander repairs is disastrous.
Unfortunately, in my experience, Voigtlander lenses seem to be very resistant when used in harsh environments, but very sensitive to mechanical influences. Even a small impact seems to damage the lenses (internally) severely. No comparison to my experience with the modern polycarbonate lenses from Canon, Sony, etc. My EF 100mm f, 2.8 IS L survived a 2 meter fall onto a rock without affecting the image quality at all, and a few falls more that followed... My 21mm f1.4 Nokton could no longer take sharp pictures after falling about 30cm on a gravel floor.
In Germany, Austria and Switzerland the lenses seem to be sent to Japan for repair. I have been waiting for my lens for 4 months now, it took 3 months for the diagnosis and the cost estimate. I am sure it will be a few more months before I get it back.
That is a shame and is actually the only reason why I hesitate to buy the 35mm APO.
I think my Tamron 35/2.8 is very similar to Tim’s. I’m keen on the APO 35, but I’ll keep my Tamron. Its macro ability is important to me and means like Tim I can baby the APO 35 more, having a cheap, but awesome 35/2.8 also.
I think the Tamron 35/2.8 is the best bang for buck landscape lens there is. But yes, its ergonomics aren’t great.
HelBen85 wrote:
... and don't forget the problems with repairs with Voigtlander lenses.
I really love the Voigtlander lenses (as well as those from Zeiss), colors, rendering, three-dimensional image impression,... and unlike Zeiss, the Voigtlander lenses look/feel (subjectively) more beautiful and are more practical to use.
In contrast, my experience with Voigtlander repairs is disastrous.
Unfortunately, in my experience, Voigtlander lenses seem to be very resistant when used in harsh environments, but very sensitive to mechanical influences. Even a small impact seems to damage the lenses (internally) severely. No comparison to my experience with the modern polycarbonate lenses from Canon, Sony, etc. My EF 100mm f, 2.8 IS L survived a 2 meter fall onto a rock without affecting the image quality at all, and a few falls more that followed... My 21mm f1.4 Nokton could no longer take sharp pictures after falling about 30cm on a gravel floor.
In Germany, Austria and Switzerland the lenses seem to be sent to Japan for repair. I have been waiting for my lens for 4 months now, it took 3 months for the diagnosis and the cost estimate. I am sure it will be a few more months before I get it back.
That is a shame and is actually the only reason why I hesitate to buy the 35mm APO. ...Show more →
I think the disastrous part was dropping an a heavy/dense metal lens like the 21 Nokton from 30cm onto a hard surface. It's like a low-speed accident in a classic car that still puts you in the hospital. Angle of impact, point of impact makes a big difference. I've heard plenty of anecdotal stories of all sorts of lenses surviving big drops or being ruined by small ones.
The repair experience sounds about like Leica, which is to say not great from a timeframe standpoint.
Thanks Tim. I'm also very happy with the IQ of my Tamron at landscape apertures, even on A7R4, and don't feel the need to look for anything else in that regard. But I don't use 35mm a lot, so I'm willing to forgive its cheap-feeling manual focus mechanism in exchange for the bonus macro ability. If I did however, I might be tempted by the CV.
(edit) ...and there is also that great CV sunstar to consider assuming flare resistance is up to it...
Apologies for the size of these, I promise that next time I do this they will be smaller. Trying to follow more of Fred's lead in posting comparisons (thanks Fred!.) These were taken with all in camera corrections off, on a tripod, manually focused. They were processed in Lightroom Classic, all corrections off (although it said it was using a built in profile for the Tamron.) I used the same sharpening for both lenses (matching Fred's.)
All were taken on my a7R III, which is probably limiting some of the ability to cross compare.....but it's all I have.
Hopefully this will give you an idea where I pulled the crops from.
Thanks for posting this comparison Tim. I will link it to the main review.
You did a great job and it's amazing how well the Tamron performs. I guessed it would not be at same level as the 35/2 APO but stopped down a bit, it's hard to tell them apart in regards to resolution/contrast.
Off-axis, the only lens that performs similarly to the APO is the 35/1.4 GM. I will post new crops when I get my new 35/2 APO. -- I'm actually getting two new loan copies tomorrow
It's been raining around here but I did check sunstar rendering last weekend while traveling.
Honestly I could only get well defined sunstars with small apertures... I guess having round specular highlights at f/2.8, f/4 and f/5.6 is a great feature but it does impact sunstar rendering.
Fred Miranda wrote:
It's been raining around here but I did check sunstar rendering last weekend while traveling.
Honestly I could only get well defined sunstars with small apertures... I guess having round specular highlights at f/2.8, f/4 and f/5.6 is a great feature but it does impact sunstar rendering.
When the weather cooperates I will post a sequence from wide open to f/16 in third increments for us to evaluate.
That's disappointing about the sunstars, and probably a deal breaker for me. I was hoping that the statement about the specially shaped aperture being "round at F2.8, F5.6, and F16" meant that it had well defined corners at the other apertures. Bad news for me since I don't care about OOF regions in my focus stacks, but well in line with the emphasis on 'smooth rendering' that seems to be dominating recent lens design.
Personally I find it a little frustrating that rendering is currently deemed so critical even in ultrawide lenses. The old CV12 is soft in the corners on A7r4, but the combination of 12mm and straight blades enables some pretty unique image making.
I prefer to use AF lenses on my A7R4 and I already have the M-mount version of the APO-Lanthar 35/2 for my Leica so I don’t really need an E-mount AL 35/2. But I’ll get one anyway to support Cosina’s innovative rounded apertures at f/2,8, f/5.6, and f/16—partly because I like the round specular highlights but also to encourage them to release more APO-Lanthar lenses with the same aperture mechanism.
Thanks Fred, and thanks again for your input that helped me structure this more like the tests you do. You do a spectacular job, and these review threads are extremely helpful.
I often shot the Tamron along side the CV 50, and I called them the "odd couple." They feel so different in use, but the Tamron was not completely outclassed in terms of results. It is nice to have the CV 35 APO to pair with the CV 50 APO though now.
I'm happy the Tamron held up so well, as when I'm doing my waterfall photography, I'm trying to go as light as possible and also am working in very wet conditions. At the apertures I use for waterfalls, I don't feel I'm giving up much with the Tamron.
Now I just have to convince myself I don't need a more generalized render oriented AF lens...... "Need" vs "want" is always an interesting question that comes into play given the amazing number of choices we have today in E mount.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Thanks for posting this comparison Tim. I will link it to the main review.
You did a great job and it's amazing how well the Tamron performs. I guessed it would not be at same level as the 35/2 APO but stopped down a bit, it's hard to tell them apart in regards to resolution/contrast.
Off-axis, the only lens that performs similarly to the APO is the 35/1.4 GM. I will post new crops when I get my new 35/2 APO. -- I'm actually getting two new loan copies tomorrow
One more comment about the CV 35 APO, given that I've been shooting with a mind towards posting samples here on FM, I haven't been applying much postprocessing. That includes clicking on the remove chromatic aberration checkbox. I can't honestly say I've seen anything so far that makes me think I absolutely "need" to check that box.
genji wrote:
I prefer to use AF lenses on my A7R4 and I already have the M-mount version of the APO-Lanthar 35/2 for my Leica so I don’t really need an E-mount AL 35/2. But I’ll get one anyway to support Cosina’s innovative rounded apertures at f/2,8, f/5.6, and f/16—partly because I like the round specular highlights but also to encourage them to release more APO-Lanthar lenses with the same aperture mechanism.
Please feel welcome to donate that lens to me, since you don’t need it. That way you can support Cosina’s continued innovation *and* another photographer who wishes to make images with the lens. ;-)
I’ll PM my address and send the shipping payment whenever you are ready...
tsdevine wrote:
Thanks Fred, and thanks again for your input that helped me structure this more like the tests you do. You do a spectacular job, and these review threads are extremely helpful.
I often shot the Tamron along side the CV 50, and I called them the "odd couple." They feel so different in use, but the Tamron was not completely outclassed in terms of results. It is nice to have the CV 35 APO to pair with the CV 50 APO though now.
I'm happy the Tamron held up so well, as when I'm doing my waterfall photography, I'm trying to go as light as possible and also am working in very wet conditions. At the apertures I use for waterfalls, I don't feel I'm giving up much with the Tamron.
Now I just have to convince myself I don't need a more generalized render oriented AF lens...... "Need" vs "want" is always an interesting question that comes into play given the amazing number of choices we have today in E mount.
