No argument with that assessment, although I'm not sure any native would do much better against the CV, short of the GM 35. It's hard to judge whether the Sigma 35/2 did better than the Tamron, as I'm only shooting the a7R III, so I hesitate to make any comparisons to the test Fred did earlier in this thread.
I think the Tamron is a great budget choice for landscape shooting, and was the best native 35 I found for that purpose up to this point.
My Tamron will probably be relegated to shooting waterfalls in wet conditions, basically when there is rain in the forecast and I don't want to risk shooting the CV in those conditions.
Steve Spencer wrote: tsdevine wrote:
I'm shooting the a7R III which is a limiting factor. Also, you can see while the Tamron is sharp to the corners, it can't quite maintain the resolving power of the Voigtlander, at least that's what I see.
These are 100% crops....so you're seeing what I'm seeing.
I also believe I have a stellar copy of the Tamron.
photosbyjaron wrote: tsdevine wrote:
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.
These are center crops.
Left - Tamron 35mm f/2.8 Di III OSD 1:2 / Right - Voigtlander APO-Lanthar 35mm f/2 Aspherical
f/2.8
f/4
f/5.6
f/8
-Tim
Granted, I have untrained eyes, but unless I'm just horribly mistaken, I can barely see any difference in resolution, which in and of itself says something pretty remarkable about the $200 Tamron. I'd assume that when looking on your own screen and not dealing with <2MB files there may be a difference, but that's pretty damn good for a $200 lens compared to what is likely the sharpest 35 available for E mount.
I do see a difference, even in the center I see more micro contrast from the CV 35 f/2 AL, but the difference are not that big. The Tamron turns in performance that makes it a real bargain, but the CV 35 f/2 AL to my eyes is clearly the stronger performer in this test.
