Update:
So based on the many inputs here, I went ahead and purchased a Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art and a Tamron 35mm 1.4 G2. I figure I can easily sell whichever one I don't like locally on FB marketplace. I don't need 2 - 35mm lens.
I'll be using these lenses on my Canon eos R6.
Both lenses cost about the same. The sigma lens comes with the USB calibration tool. I did some research and all the lens calibration instructions I came across was for DSLR. So, besides the firmware update on the lens, is it necessary to calibrate these lens (Sigma and Tamron) if using mirrorless camera?
Both lenses were purchased on this forum and will ship out Monday (Oct.9). Hopefully I should have them by the weekend.
Hopefully none of the lenses will need adjustment.
c102690 wrote:
Both lenses cost about the same. The sigma lens comes with the USB calibration tool. I did some research and all the lens calibration instructions I came across was for DSLR. So, besides the firmware update on the lens, is it necessary to calibrate these lens (Sigma and Tamron) if using mirrorless camera?
Should just see if there is a firmware update available and make sure it's set to default, so that it focuses where the camera tells it to.
I know the OP has made a decision and budget is also a consideration. But if you're shooting events and are torn between the 24-70 and primes, seriously consider the RF 28-70/2. Yes, it's huge, somewhat heavy and expensive. But what surprised me about it, and made it my #1 RF acquisition priority was that it simply renders like a bunch of fast primes, but all in one lens. It just renders more pleasingly, IMO, than any 24-70 I've used. These reasons, for me, makes it worth lugging around (and its size and weight actually isn't that bad).
Some posts in this thread remind me of 35mm lens discussions in the Leica forum. There are so many opinions about desirable bokeh, etc... but 35mm is a focal length where super smooth bokeh at other than very close distances is less of a sure thing. Maybe one of the best I've experienced was the 35/2 Sonnar in the Sony RX1. But that's a fixed lens camera... No direct experience, but the Sigma 35/1.2 for Sony mirrorless also looks pretty good (also a huge lens).
I had the EF 35/2 IS and it's a competent lens, but the wide open bokeh never really appealed to me, particularly into the corners.
I've had this 35mm f/1.8 RF Macro for over 3 years and shot many weddings with it. I have nothing but good things to say about it. Bokeh is subjective to those who care...
Added bonus of course is the macro capability. Here are a few examples.
Canon EOS R6RF35mm F1.8 MACRO IS STM lens35mmf/11.01/640s160 ISO0.0 EV
Canon EOS R6RF35mm F1.8 MACRO IS STM lens35mmf/10.01/500s250 ISO0.0 EV
Canon EOS R6RF35mm F1.8 MACRO IS STM lens35mmf/2.81/200s100 ISO0.0 EV
Canon EOS R6RF35mm F1.8 MACRO IS STM lens35mmf/1.81/250s800 ISO0.0 EV
Canon EOS R6RF35mm F1.8 MACRO IS STM lens35mmf/1.81/400s100 ISO0.0 EV
Canon EOS R6RF35mm F1.8 MACRO IS STM lens35mmf/1.81/1250s200 ISO0.0 EV
Canon EOS R6RF35mm F1.8 MACRO IS STM lens35mmf/1.81/400s160 ISO0.0 EV
Canon EOS R6RF35mm F1.8 MACRO IS STM lens35mmf/1.81/640s100 ISO0.0 EV
Canon EOS R6RF35mm F1.8 MACRO IS STM lens35mmf/1.81/200s100 ISO0.0 EV
Canon EOS R6RF35mm F1.8 MACRO IS STM lens35mmf/1.81/200s1000 ISO0.0 EV
Canon EOS R6RF35mm F1.8 MACRO IS STM lens35mmf/1.81/200s1600 ISO0.0 EV
Canon EOS R6RF35mm F1.8 MACRO IS STM lens35mmf/1.81/200s4000 ISO0.0 EV
rscheffler wrote:
I know the OP has made a decision and budget is also a consideration. But if you're shooting events and are torn between the 24-70 and primes, seriously consider the RF 28-70/2. Yes, it's huge, somewhat heavy and expensive. But what surprised me about it, and made it my #1 RF acquisition priority was that it simply renders like a bunch of fast primes, but all in one lens. It just renders more pleasingly, IMO, than any 24-70 I've used. These reasons, for me, makes it worth lugging around (and its size and weight actually isn't that bad).
I wholeheartedly second this. The 28-70 is the ultimate event lens, and for me, the ultimate walkaround lens. It has lived on my R5 since the day it arrived. I don't shoot many events anymore, but that lens would have simplified the process. The big debate is usually centered around size/weight, and whether or not it replaces a 35mm or 50mm prime. On a camera with IBIS, I can confidently say it is a 100% replacement for a 35 f/1.8, and a 90% replacement for a 35 f/1.4 or a 50 f/1.2. You quickly forget about the size/weight once you start seeing the images.
People have talked about the old EF 135L, the EF 50L, and the original EF 35L as having some internal "magic" that creates images with a signature look. The 28-70 does the same. There is some special combination of color rendering and micro-contrast going on with this lens that isn't happening with the RF 24-70. The differences go well beyond the additional bokeh.
I tried the RF24-70 and it didn't do anything to excite me. Sure, IS was nice, but my cameras have IBIS. At the time I tried it, I also tried the RF 70-200/2.8, which I really liked a lot. At 70mm, the out of focus background rendering between the two was markedly different, in favor of the 70-200's better smoothness. The 24-70 simply reminded me of the competent EF 24-70/2.8 II, that always got the job done but didn't excite me. It also shared field curvature traits with the EF version that I did not like, whereas the 28-70 is remarkably well controlled. I can do group photos at any focal length and at wider apertures without having to worry about field curvature causing sharpness falloff towards the edges of the groups.
IMO Canon found a good balance with the 'look' of the 28-70. It's sharp wide open (at least on my 24MP cameras) but maybe it's not the sharpest in the category, or compared to the RF 50/1.2L and other über primes. But I suspect this is also why its rendering/bokeh is very neutral for this kind of zoom. IOW, it's not over-corrected specifically for wide open sharpness that might sacrifice subtlety and gentleness of out of focus rendering.
Every contribution here was very helpful in helping me decide on a good 35mm 1.4 for my Canon EOS R6. Each lens has its positives and negatives and to me it comes down to personal taste. Like I stated previously, I ended up purchasing both the Tamron 35mm 1.4 (because I owned one before) and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art. It was very hard to decide on which one to keep. As a result, I kept both until I saw a WTB ad for a sigma 35mm and that's how I ended up selling the Sigma and keeping the Tamron. Like they say: having very good choices is a good problem to have. Glad about the Tamron I settled with: heavy compared to RF 35m but I'm very happy with the images the Tamron creates and the autofocus is snappy.
Thanks all again!!!
I also want to thank those who suggested the sigma 35. I’ve had one for ages, that has sat ignored for as long as I’ve owned it, but you inspired me to give it another go and I’m really enjoying it. I’ve been switching between my 35 1.8, tamron 1.4 and sigma 1.4 while I wait for canon to release their L RF 35. The tamron is still my favorite, but I’m enjoying the sigma as well.
I’ve been in the same situation looking for a 35 mm to go with my R5 and decided on the Tamron 1.4
At the moment I don’t have a wide angle full frame lens , mainly use 300 2.8 , 70-200 F 4 and 100L macro
Think I would be disappointed with the RF version if it didn’t have similar image quality to my existing lenses
Have the RF 35mm 1.8 and previously had the Tamron 1.4 (newest one). The tamron was significantly better in all ways minus having to adapt. Our RF 35mm has a hard time focusing on our toddlers in action. Hands down I would prefer to the EF 1.4 from canon sigma or tamron va the RF 35mm.
jjjwolf7722 wrote:
Have the RF 35mm 1.8 and previously had the Tamron 1.4 (newest one). The tamron was significantly better in all ways minus having to adapt. Our RF 35mm has a hard time focusing on our toddlers in action. Hands down I would prefer to the EF 1.4 from canon sigma or tamron va the RF 35mm.
Yeah, it’s weird how the canon RF 1.8 struggles more with AF than the 3rd party options. I always thought it was my older R body, and then when it still struggled with my r6, I realized that it was the lens. The Tamron (and maybe even sigma), seem to do a much better job. The Tamron really is great, other than the size, once it’s adapted.
comotionfilms wrote:
Yeah, it’s weird how the canon RF 1.8 struggles more with AF than the 3rd party options. I always thought it was my older R body, and then when it still struggled with my r6, I realized that it was the lens. The Tamron (and maybe even sigma), seem to do a much better job. The Tamron really is great, other than the size, once it’s adapted.
I think it comes down to the STM focusing combined with the long focus throw needed for half life-size magnification. The 85 f/2 STM Macro operates in a similar leisurely way. I think these lenses focus quick enough generally, but if they start a hunt, it's a frustrating wait.
For some types of photography this isn't a deal breaker, and the macro capabilities are useful. I also like how light and compact the STM primes are. They have good sharpness and the wides in particular have faster maximum apertures than their EF equivalents. (And the RF 35 1.8 IS I think has better rendering than the EF 35 2.0 IS.) Because of all this, they also make reasonable prime choices for APS-C.
But they are compromises for sure. If we could have all of these same lens designs with nano-USM focusing, that would be something.
I just purchased the 35mm 1.4L v1 and I'm really happy with it. I had been looking to purchase it for a long time but was on the fence between the Tamron and this one. I was able to get a good deal on one and that helped make up my mind. I've only had it for a few days but so far I'm really impressed.
ISO1600 wrote:
Anybody in this thread ever use the Tamron 35/1.8 VC? I've always thought it looked interesting but didn't get much press.
I personally love the look from the original 35L, but yeah I would not like the handling adapted to RF. Quite excited for the new RF 35L.
I have it and use it adapted on an RP and native on a 5DIII. I love the contrast and pop of this lens. Images shot with it have a kind of fashion look to them. For some reason, it doesn't look as good on the RP. Maybe it's an exposure/correction thing...I really can't figure it out. I'm sure whatever that issue is, it's not present on a newer R body.
But keep in mind, it's not a light lens. I would think with the adapter, it's not going to be very fun to use.
rek101 wrote:
I have it and use it adapted on an RP and native on a 5DIII. I love the contrast and pop of this lens. Images shot with it have a kind of fashion look to them. For some reason, it doesn't look as good on the RP. Maybe it's an exposure/correction thing...I really can't figure it out. I'm sure whatever that issue is, it's not present on a newer R body.
But keep in mind, it's not a light lens. I would think with the adapter, it's not going to be very fun to use.
Your comment made me look again on my local market and I found a used one for $250. I'll be checking it out in a few days. I'd be using it on my R8, so yeah the balance might be kinda goofy.
ISO1600 wrote:
Your comment made me look again on my local market and I found a used one for $250. I'll be checking it out in a few days. I'd be using it on my R8, so yeah the balance might be kinda goofy.
I think you'll be very impressed. Someone here said Tamron's 35 1.4 is the best lens they ever made....I have to believe a lot of what went into that lens went into this one because for me at least, it's the best image quality of any lens I have and I'm comparing it to some L lenses like the 24 70 2.8 version II. I hope you'll share your thoughts on the lens after you use it for a while.
