Fast 35mm options for FX

[matters410]

<p>"VC helpful for shooting moving subjects with a 35mm at 1/200? lol. only if you have extra-shaky hands or are shooting from a moving platform"</p>

<p>Eric- I'm not entirely sure you are in a position to make this assessment, given your D3s has 1/2 the resolution of a D750, 1/3 the resolution of a D810 and 1/4 the resolution of a the new Canon 50 MP camera. We are talking about high resolution bodies, not the 12 megapixel D3s. This forum has many comments on the dangers of shooting a high resolution body handheld VS on a tripod (a fairly similar argument to using VC/VR) and how things that look sharp on a 12 MP sensor don't hold up under higher resolution. Obviously the VC is less of a factor at higher shutter speeds, but that doesn't mean the effect is negligible. I highly doubt your assertion that VC @35mm is pointless unless you are handholding at 1/15th. If I get the Tamron perhaps I'll do some testing with VC on and off at various shutter speeds. Until then I can hardly speak intelligently on the subject, merely speculate as to the possible benefits. </p>

<p>On paper the Tamron has significant advantages: Price, video, weather sealing, VC, size/weight, build quality, close focusing ablility and according to several reviews even AF (not just live view... straight up phase detection AF). That's a sizable list of advantages over "unparalleled" sharpness and less purple/green fringing. The extra 2/3 stop seems less and less of a big deal. Either way, from sample images they both seem to be great lenses and I'm sure I'll love shooting with either one.<br>

Aside from this discussion...what's with the "lol" habit? Do you have a fourteen year old daughter that texts you stuff like that? It's a bit condescending and immature.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>point taken about the greater possibility of camera shake on higher-resolution bodies, although the danger zone seems to be different for every camera, and has been addressed to some degree with electronic shutters on the latest models. personally there are a lot of reasons why i wouldnt ideally use a d810 for action shots or candids, but then if we are talking about 36 and 50mp sensors, there's also a higher likelihood of someone chasing ultimate image quality, which in this case would seem to favor the 35 ART over the tamron, and would also favor using live view and tripod. Given that nikon itself doesnt make a stabilized 35, i'm not sure how many grains of salt i should assign to this.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>On paper the Tamron has significant advantages: Price, video, weather sealing, VC, size/weight, build quality, close focusing ablility and according to several reviews even AF (not just live view... straight up phase detection AF). </p>

</blockquote>

<p>actually, the Tamron's build quality isn't better than the Sigma's, and if you are talking about focusing speed, the Sigma USM module is equivalent to Nikon's AF-S in side-by-side usage. So i dont know how we can add those to the advantage column. I've only seen one head to head comparison between the Tamron and the Sigma, which only looked at one shooting scenario, but hopefully we'll see more soon which allow for more comprehensive testing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>what's with the "lol" habit? Do you have a fourteen year old daughter that texts you stuff like that? It's a bit condescending and immature.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>lol. if you want to be the grammar and speech police, you're in the wrong forum. </p>

[chip_chipowski]

<blockquote>

<p>I suspect a more thorough test will find more even performance from the sigma overall and some corners cut with the tamron,</p>

</blockquote>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>actually, the Tamron's build quality isn't better than the Sigma's</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Eric, do you have any experience with the Tamron? Based on your first quote (i.e. speculation) I want to clarify if the second quote is also speculation.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>hmm, Chip, wondering why you're singling me out, instead of asking for the source of the OP's claim the Tamron has better build. the lens hasnt shipped yet, so there's no way he could possibly know that. im pretty sure we've all read the same reviews which say the Tamron has a metal casing, and the Sigma has a ThermalyStableCompound along with metal. The only person who's slammed the Sigma on build quality AFAIK is Mr. Kenney Rockwell. and the Sigma is already the second-heaviest 35/1.4 made, so i guess we're arguing here that it could have been heavier. The thing is, all-metal isn't necessarily "better" as TSC doesnt expand or contract with exposure to heat or cold. To illustrate my point, i need look no further than the 24-70 AF-S nikkor, which ive used in some fairly tropical conditions. ostensibly it's built better than the Tamron variant, but in reality, the zoom ring has become loose with use. meanwhile my almost 3-year-old 35ART still looks brand new. So that comes down to personal preferences of metal vs. hi-tech plastic, i.e. entirely subjective.</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Just trying to keep the thread grounded here. OP said "on paper...." I wasn't being cute, I was honestly wondering whether you had handled both.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>The Tamron does not have better build than the Sigma (I've handled both). The Sigma is more attractive to me, as it is made of alloy and its weight makes it feel better - more akin to the old Zeiss ZF line. The Tamron is much lighter and more resembles a good plastic Nikon or Canon lens, but with some fancy design elements (two color). I wouldn't really make the build a deciding feature in comparing the two myself though. The Tamron is arguably more useful what with its VR and close focusing at the cost of a third of a stop. I don't really know which is "better" image wise. Not sure it matters really as I think both are good.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>The build quality is a wash. The Sigma is solid and heavy. The Tamron is lighter but that's because machined aluminum is used extensively, which gives a weight advantage. Both lenses are very strong on build quality. The Tamron is weather sealed and the Sigma isn't, for whatever that's worth.</p>

<p>Eric, I've been known to fanboy out over some of my gear too, but having VR in your midrange primes is fantastic for anybody who's got lower light shooting in mind. It's the one thing I miss after giving up on Olympus.</p>

[matters410]

<p>I haven't handled either, but there are at least two reviewers who compared the two (I do not care to go back and find which ones as I am busy at the moment) that held the Tamron slightly better in build quality. I don't think heavier means better build quality. I actually quite like the construction of light 1.8 Nikon primes. Also, Kai from Digitalrev complains about the build quality of the Sigma 50 1.4 Art in his review, which is nearly identical to the 35 from what I gather. Not all people are sycophantic sigma fanatics (not talking about you Robin).</p>

<p>Furthermore, I would argue that good weather sealing is an indicator of attention to detail and build quality. It doesn't matter how thermallyDynamicallywhatever your material is, if you take a lens with no weather sealing into the dessert or the rain forest you are going to have issues (not that I intend to do either). Tamron has even weather sealed the focus ring and that attention to detail points toward quality construction. It seems like an obvious mistake not to have even included a ring by the mount in the Sigma. That along with the now clear AF issues (yet another thread about people having trouble on this forum's front page) makes me wary of the Sigma no matter how blown away people (and Fanboys like Eric) are by the sharpness. I'm fairly certain the Tamron will not be a slouch in the sharpness department, anyway. I'm done feeding the troll, I'll make my judgment when I can see both lenses in person. As I have said, they both seem like very nice products. This thread is more about which will be more useful to me, personally. If anyone ELSE has a new or interesting perspective to add or some sample images from any of the lenses mentioned (preferably not useless, muddy images from a nightclub that illustrate nothing) I'd love to see and hear from them.</p>

<p> </p>

[andylynn]

<p>With the strong caveats that these samples are from the 45mm Tamron, not the 35mm - I tried both and the image sharpness and rendering were very similar but I ended up with the 45 because I like the focal length - and that I have not taken it to any nightclubs yet, <a href="https://www.flickr.com/gp/21616771@N04/7Q11LJ">here are some of my recent Tamron shots</a>.</p>

[matters410]

<p>Thanks Andy.<br>

I think they look pretty good at a glance. The one shot with the concrete eagle that is pretty strongly backlit looks like it has some green fringing (?), but there are many other backlit shots that have none. Have to be pleased with their overall contrast and lack of flare on the shot that was right into the sun. Do you like 45mm more than 50, or do you feel like they are pretty similar? What do you think of the VR?</p>

[andylynn]

It does show a green fringe in some out of focus, strong contrast lines. Again, I couldn't give a comparison between that

effect on the 45 and the 35 but I'd assume you could get some - I've only seen a few large aperture primes that don't. It

can be reduced but not eliminated in post.

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p> having VR in your midrange primes is fantastic for anybody who's got lower light shooting in mind. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>anybody? i'm afraid that axiom doesnt hold true for music photographers, who have to shoot in low-light with fast shutter speeds. i'd rather have VR on longer lenses, if i had a choice.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Not all people are sycophantic sigma fanatics (not talking about you Robin).<br>

(and Fanboys like Eric)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>now it's come to personal attacks? sheesh... i guess you forgot that i mentioned the Tamron in the first place as an option. how, exactly, does that make me a "fanboy" or a "sycophantic sigma fanatic"???</p>

<blockquote>

<p>useless, muddy images from a nightclub that illustrate nothing</p>

</blockquote>

<p>you know, if you are going to ask for images at open apertures in low-light conditions, which you did, and then dismiss them as "useless," one might just say you are being not only hypocritical, but disrespectful. i guess you're okay with being completely disingenuous, but really i think you crossed a line there. i wasn't asking for subjective critique of my shots, but merely trying to help you out by supplying what you asked for. obviously, you have much to learn about gratitude and honoring your own intention. </p>

[alan_wilder1]

<p>I recently picked up the Sigma 35/1.4 Art with no regrets so far. AF is fast, precise and accurate once the AF fine tuning is completed with the Sigma USB Dock. It works better than Nikon's AF fine tuning on a 3rd party lens and also doesn't use up one of the twelve memory slots for Nikon's AF fine tuning feature on my D750 body. The main reason it's worth it is because optically it handily exceeds anything Nikon offers in a 35mm prime lens.</p>

[matters410]

<p>Alan- I'm glad your have good experience with your 35 after using the dock. There is some hope then.</p>

<p>Eric- lol...did I hurt your feelings? I didn't realize you were so sensitive. Andy mentioned your fanboy tendencies at the same time I was writing my post. Was that coincidence or was it because you've acted like a <strong>complete fanboy</strong>? It seems you want to talk about all of the positives of the Sigma and none of the negatives. Your attitude towards any opinion contradictory to your own is completely and consistently condescending and disrespectful and it cheapens your opinion, which I originally mistook to be informative and helpful. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>(preferably not useless, muddy images from a nightclub that illustrate nothing)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Crossed a line? I think not. Perhaps I got a bit snippy, but you were egging me on and thus inspired me to be honest. The nightclub shots <em>are</em> objectively muddy (80% clear off the histogram) and thus and don't display any of the groundbreaking characteristics of the Sigma lens, which makes them pretty useless in this discussion compared to say, Keith's images. Your dappled light portrait at least did a decent job of showing some characteristics of the lens. The keyboard shot is maybe only 50% useless. It at least made me wonder at the astonishing ability of the amputee-pianist. Focusing where his hand would be was genius. Makes you think of how good he could have been...</p>

<p>To be fair, I quite like the shot of the flamenco dancers.</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Eric- lol...did I hurt your feelings? I didn't realize you were so sensitive. Andy mentioned your fanboy tendencies at the same time I was writing my post. Was that coincidence or was it because you've acted like a <strong>complete fanboy</strong>?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>jonathan, to be completely honest, you seem like someone who isn't very mature and doesnt want to take any accountability for your actions. i.e., you actually accuse me of being responsible for you getting 'a bit snippy,' as if you have no self-control over your own behavior. in actuality, you went out of your way to make uncalled for and inappropriate remarks and were both insulting and condescending to someone who was just trying to help you out. that being the case, i have to wonder about what's behind that. you've clearly displayed pathological behavior, which is quite possibly symptomatic of borderline personality disorder and/or unresolved control and anger-management issues. at the very least, it's clear you are not a nice person, so i regret spending any time or energy on your thread. </p>

[matters410]

<p></p>

<p >You are right. I am a deeply disturbed and selfish individual and certainly not a nice person at all. That why I've worked with kids with cancer for the last decade. It's the perfect place to unleash my pathological wrath upon the earth. Due to my borderline personality disorder I can't be held to the same standards as Eric Arnold, paragon of human behavior on the internet, responsible for such mature and witty gems as the quote below. <br>

Ironically I stumbled upon that on a Tamron review, and clicked your name to see if it was the same Eric Arnold. Sure enough, there you were. Communications Director of the CRP, huh? Seems a little sexist and degrading behavior for someone in that position. Since you seem so intent on having the last word, I'll leave the discussion with your own words and certainly won't be returning to it. Prattle on, if you like, or defend your absurdity but I have not the slightest interest in anything else you have to add. You've destroyed this thread thoroughly with your troll behavior and I doubt it will be of any more use.</p>

<p > </p>

 

<p ><a href="https://disqus.com/by/disqus_aiYOSkxr9L/">https://disqus.com/by/disqus_aiYOSkxr9L/</a></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="https://disqus.com/by/disqus_aiYOSkxr9L/">Eric Arnold</a><a href="https://disqus.com/home/discussion/ewm/true_detective_recap_other_lives_ewcom_58/#comment-2147597819"> 3 months ago </a>i really wanted to see Jordan's t$&s after all that mushy build-up which didnt really seem to go anywhere, except establish a dichotomy between potential scrape job Paul and Jordan's three abortions. C'mon, HBO, dont be getting all prudish on us now, show us some M-I-L-F love!...</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p > </p>

</blockquote>

 

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

 

[evilsivan]

I am not sure why there isn't more support for the nikon 35mm f1.8. This is a great lens and only a half stop slower than the 1.4 at, what, a third of the price? It has a a good fast focus and my copy at least is sharp wide open. The build quality is good, not super rugged. I myself am done with non-Nikon lenses at least for now.

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p> Prattle on, if you like, or defend your absurdity but I have not the slightest interest in anything else you have to add. You've destroyed this thread thoroughly with your troll behavior and I doubt it will be of any more use.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>hey there jonathan, just wanted to let you know my "useless" photos are going to be used in a national campaign by a record label. guess that says everything we need to know about your Extremely Important Opinion. <br>

<br>

also, randomly pulling google-search material from a comment on an online review of HBO's True Detective and inserting it into a thread on photography shows you are more interested in miscontextualizing and character assassination than anything resembling human integrity. not that i should have to explain sarcasm to you, but HBO is known for gratuitous nudity, and season 2 of true detective needed a lot more interesting things than the overwrought trainwreck which viewers ended up watching. maybe as an encore you can dig up an essay i wrote for college on "apocalypse now" and randomly insert in into a post about optical low-pass filters.</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>This is some really quality discourse, geez.</p>

<p>Ofer - I agree the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 (FX) does not get a lot of buzz. 35mm is one of my favorites, so I plan to check out the Nikkor if I eventually move to FX. I am disappointed Nikon does not make a 24mm DX lens - very jealous of the Canon EFS 24mm pancake.</p>

[evilsivan]

Yeah this seriously went off the rails! Pretty unusual for Pnetters. That's teh interwebz for you... But yeah don't overlook the 35mm if you ever go full frame. This lens is my most used lens at this point. I just can't believe the Tamron or Sigmas are as good, but like everyone else on this site and the world, I suffer from confirmation bias ("Since I chose it, it is the best option").

[chip_chipowski]

<p>http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Tamron-SP-35mm-F1.8-Di-VC-USD-Nikon-mount-Shooting-for-the-top</p>