Steve Starr Nice! I would throw a bit of caution on the 10-24mm...I had it for almost a month before returning it and getting the 12-24mm f/4 Sigma. If super wide is the name of the game, then the new G2 15-30mm f/2.8 is juiciest choice!
I have the Nikon D750 but just got a D500 last week. I sold my Nikon 16-35MM VR, and am looking to shoot ultra wide more with the D500....so the 10-24mm Tamron. I might/might not worry about wide-angle on the D750 later on. I hope to get the Tamron 70-200mm VC in 2019.
Yes, I do the same as well, first lense for my Nikon body was 20700 g2 when it first came out, the 35mm 1.8 is coming in tomorrow!!!! Have nice portrait section for new model friend, can't wait what the lense can do!!!
Ciao Edoardo, I'm not a videographer but anyway after a long evaluation I also went for the Tamron, due to the smaller dimensions, the weight and actually some serious doubts about the Sigma's AF. Couldn't be happier with it. Razor sharp, and the MFD allows nice creative shots.
That's a great lens as well! Definitely cheaper than the Sigma Art but your not going to get the same creamy background you would get with the Art with the Nikkor.
The truth is, you won't notice the difference between 1.8 and 1.4 unless you look at two images shot with either very closely. The creative effect is pretty much the same at 1.8 for real world purposes. What you will notice though is that the Nikon is significantly lighter and cheaper, and it's not 3rd party, meaning it'll focus much more reliably. Out of those two I wouldn't hesitate to go with the Nikon.
You're glad you have a macro, but you're losing focus speed. A macro lens must be far away from the sensor and take a long time to return. I had a lot of missing shoots with the Tamron when starts to hunt. Sigma 35 is a faster af lens.
Hello Ed, i recently gave away my 40mm stm and looking for a lens to replace it with, my choices are the tammy 35vc, Sigma 18-35 and the Canon 35 f2 and the 16-35 f4 IS USM L. i've heard the Sigma has serious AF issues with the camera i use (80D) and i'm a bit hesitant to invest that much money into a lens which might not work properly with my camera. is the IQ advantage of the L lens that significant than the other two lenses that i should forget about its smaller aperture? Curious to see which one would you pick out of the 16-35, the Tamron and the 35 f2.
+Roozbeh thank you for stopping by! The Canon 16-35 lens is very handy because of its Zoom capabilities but I honestly never bothered using it at it's widest due to producing very soft edges and let's not forget it is the heaviest out of all 3 which to me is a huge downer. The Canon 35 f2 on the other hand is your lightest and slightly sharper than the Tamron but only by a small margin if you really pixel peep. The other cool advantage on the Canon 35 is that it can stop down to f22 whereas the Tamron only at f16 which can help you achieve 1-2.5 extra seconds on your longer exposure shots when you have a ND filter on. BUT the Tamron 35 has VC which is great for when it comes to video and photos. I really love that feature and yes especially on a 35 which allows you to shoot handheld with such low shutter speed. It's just slightly heavier than the Canon but that it unnoticeable. I would personally go with the Tamron. First, I look at features that I find useful and then consider worrying about sharpness, distortion, etc. Let me know if you have any other questions :)
Hi. I mostly shoot videos and from your take Tamron is preferred for video. Other than VC, which one performs better with autofocus and which one has more autofocus noise. For video in 35mm with at least f/1.8, which lens do you think is best
Heyla! I founded the Sigma to be slightly more accurate than the Tamron probably due to increased light transmission of its 1.4 aperture. However, focus noise on the Sigma was louder than the Tamron especially when taking consideration of the VC & Focus working together. I still prefer the Tamron 35mm 1.8 VC to work best for video, hands down.
Hi, how about the Tamron against the Canon 35mm F/2 Is? I juts sold my sigma 35 because of focus issues, would you recommend this Tamron for weddings over the Canon F/2? Thanks
+Wanderley Massafelli sharpness wise are both the same, f 1.8 and f2 are also about the same the main component that will truly sell is the advantage of having VC on the Tamron which works great. I would say for shooting wedding that is extremely recommend by me it will also help alot when shooting video. Focus on the Tamron works great as well better than the Sigma, the canon from what I have experienced is only slightly faster.
only had it a week untill I had to send in the D800 since it stopped focusing in dark sorroundings! I am going to borrow a D5500 untill it comes back! A bit slow on focusing but probably worth it!
I see that the Tamron is almost as sharp at the Sigma, but how about image rendering and look? Which one produces the more pleasing images regardless of technical specifications? And what about auto-focus accuracy and Tamron's VC accuracy (I heard that the VC can blur the image at higher shutter speeds)?
The Sigma surpasses the Tamron clearly when comparing it with any form of image rendering. For example, Color rendering: The images come out to be much richer and a bit cooler. The Sigma shines its best when its open at 1.4 which produces beautiful images, with a much smoother/dreamy bokeh. Focus accuracy is slightly better on the Sigma as well as a bit faster. I did not experience any issues with VC on my Tamron either at slow or fast shutter speed. However, it is never safe to have VC ON on any lens when the shutter speed is way beyond your safe margin. The elements are much more sensitive due to being right next to your sensor, than an average camera shake or movement. On another note I experienced this matter on my Tamron 85mm 1.8 VC and that is because the elements on the 85 are much bigger than the 35 which makes it harder for the VC motor to adjust the elements inside fast enough when shooting under higher shutter speeds.
Edoardo Marino Thanks for your excellent response. It seems that the Tamron 35 has a closer focus distance than any 35mm, including the Sigma. If you go closer and blur the background more, have you ever seen the bokeh and overall rendering exceed the Sigma?
In that case, yes. The Tamron can achieve a bit more blurred background as seen on 3:22 with the advantage of its closest focus distance. Overall rendering seems to stay the same between both of them. The Tamron takes on the advantage of achieving an additional different look than the Sigma, which steps into more of a macro photography.
The manual focus when shooting video is nice and smooth with plenty of travel. Have to keep in mind that every Tamron that I bought including the 70-200 g2 their focus is pretty stiff when fresh out the box. But after consecutive shoots the focus ring loosens up and becomes nice and buttery. Hope this helps, let me know if you have any other questions.
These lenses are built with traditional mechanical aperture control. There is a little pin that goes inside your camera's mount, and based on your camera setting the pin will either move up or down in order to open or close the diaphragm blades. Newer lens models like the TAMRON 85mm 1.8 VC have introduced electromagnetic diaphragm system which does not use any mechanical parts but instead electronic pulses in order to change your aperture. You can watch this on my review video: czcams.com/video/wbvhb-2DG3Q/video.htmlm22s 杨关道
If you are referring to the way I open and close the aperture manually in my video, that is located at the mount of the lens, right next to the electronic connection pins there should be a little piece of metal sticking out that you can move up and down. That metal leveler is controlled mechanically by the camera when mounted in order to change apertures. Once attached the lens does not have a manual aperture feature. For the purpose of this video I used it to show how wide each lens opens up.
I don't believe what your saying is true to be honest. When comparing a lens with a bigger aperture (1.4) the lens not only gets more light in, the depth of field is creamier, and because of the bigger glass elements, they also typically let in more pixels through your image thus resulting on a much higher resolution photo. 3rd parties lenses now days have a very reliable focus motors in fact one of my Nikkor lens the 70-300 focus motor gave out on me and my Tamron 70-200 which were bought at the same time, is still working like a champ. Lighter and cheaper does not always translate to good but perhaps a good starter lens.
@@EdoardoMarinoDodi If you look at comparative sharpness scores, like in DxOmark, you'll find that the maximum aperture and sharpness aren't necessarily related. In the case of the 35mm options, the sigma and tamron are indeed sharper than the Nikon, but not worlds sharper. For a focal length that'll be hand held most of the time, I'd consider the sharpness difference to be fairly irrelevant. Depth of field difference is a matter of taste. Yes, there is a 2/3rd stop difference, that's a fact. My point was that most people won't have complaints at f/1.8 though. Considering that the sigma 35 f/1.4 is so much more expensive, heavier and larger than the Nikon, I believe the Nikon to be the much better deal. Sidenote: I never said 3rd party lenses are necessarily inferior in built quality. They aren't. But autofocus definitely isn't as reliable as on name brand glass of the same quality. That's not to say it can't be decent. But it's an advantage for Nikon compared to sigma.
This is your opinion and I fully respect that. The Nikon might be a better lens for you, but not for everyone who is trying to use a lens as creative brush than what the Nikkor has to offer. There are so many cheaper and much more reliable options in the market out there that will get you a great 35mm focal length. As I mentioned on this video the Tamron is much more versatile as it equips VR which helps you with handheld shakes and stop down your shutter speed to allow more light in. The Sigma on the other hand still retains much better glass and much more pleasing bookeh than the Tamron can it is why it's much heavier than Tamron or Nikon. I visually notice the difference, I am sure there are alot of people who noticed this difference as well, otherwise what is always the point of getting better glass if a kit lens could get you the same results? Why is it more expensive?
That depends. An APS-C camera is the exact same deal as cropping a full frame camera. If you have a high res full frame that retains the same resolution as the aps-c camera you compare it to when cropped 1.5x, then you get identical results with both. Example: A D850 on crop mode gets you pretty much identical resolution as a D500. Therefore, using a D500 does not get you any more close up than using a D850 and cropping. But if you compared a 24 mpix full frame 6D II with, say, the 30 mpix aps-c 90D, then yeah, the 90D would get you a lot more close up with the same lens.
FYI - when using crop mode (dx) on a full frame camera, you are cutting down pixels from your full frame sensor. Also the depth of field is different from what you get from a native aps sensor vs a full frame sensor.
@@youknowwho9247 We don't know exactly how many pixels it cuts out from the D850 sensor but either way the depth of field still remains different for what you get from an FX sensor vs DX sensor.
I chose the TAMRON over the SIGMA and I couldn’t be happier...matter of fact,I am going to do my entire glass line up with TAMRON!
I got the Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 last week, getting the 10-24mm tomorrow. Leaving Nikon lenses for the newer Tamrons......they are kicking ass.
Steve Starr Nice! I would throw a bit of caution on the 10-24mm...I had it for almost a month before returning it and getting the 12-24mm f/4 Sigma. If super wide is the name of the game, then the new G2 15-30mm f/2.8 is juiciest choice!
I have the Nikon D750 but just got a D500 last week. I sold my Nikon 16-35MM VR, and am looking to shoot ultra wide more with the D500....so the 10-24mm Tamron. I might/might not worry about wide-angle on the D750 later on. I hope to get the Tamron 70-200mm VC in 2019.
Yes, I do the same as well, first lense for my Nikon body was 20700 g2 when it first came out, the 35mm 1.8 is coming in tomorrow!!!! Have nice portrait section for new model friend, can't wait what the lense can do!!!
Ciao Edoardo, I'm not a videographer but anyway after a long evaluation I also went for the Tamron, due to the smaller dimensions, the weight and actually some serious doubts about the Sigma's AF. Couldn't be happier with it. Razor sharp, and the MFD allows nice creative shots.
Tamron 85mm f/1.8 Di VC Review coming out soon! Currently at Post-Production Phase. Stay tuned.
czcams.com/video/wbvhb-2DG3Q/video.html
I had a lot of missing shoots with the tamron in low light situations, specially in weddings when I need to shoot fast sometimes
Interesting, I hardly ever experienced inconsistency in focus with my 35mm. What are you shooting with and what type of focus tracking were you using?
you should add RAW sample photos to download so we can see the sample photos above youtube quality
Will do! I'll let you know once they are up. Thank you 🙏
I primarily use for photo. So how does the the Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art compares with Nikon 35mm f1.8 Ed FX ?
That's a great lens as well! Definitely cheaper than the Sigma Art but your not going to get the same creamy background you would get with the Art with the Nikkor.
The truth is, you won't notice the difference between 1.8 and 1.4 unless you look at two images shot with either very closely. The creative effect is pretty much the same at 1.8 for real world purposes.
What you will notice though is that the Nikon is significantly lighter and cheaper, and it's not 3rd party, meaning it'll focus much more reliably.
Out of those two I wouldn't hesitate to go with the Nikon.
Love this! Thanks for this educational video, now i know what lens to buy 😊 more power and you deserve more subscriber.
I appreciate it thank you!
You're glad you have a macro, but you're losing focus speed. A macro lens must be far away from the sensor and take a long time to return. I had a lot of missing shoots with the Tamron when starts to hunt. Sigma 35 is a faster af lens.
TAMRON makes a 35mm 1.4sp I think that would be a fair fight now
Hello Ed, i recently gave away my 40mm stm and looking for a lens to replace it with, my choices are the tammy 35vc, Sigma 18-35 and the Canon 35 f2 and the 16-35 f4 IS USM L.
i've heard the Sigma has serious AF issues with the camera i use (80D) and i'm a bit hesitant to invest that much money into a lens which might not work properly with my camera.
is the IQ advantage of the L lens that significant than the other two lenses that i should forget about its smaller aperture?
Curious to see which one would you pick out of the 16-35, the Tamron and the 35 f2.
+Roozbeh thank you for stopping by! The Canon 16-35 lens is very handy because of its Zoom capabilities but I honestly never bothered using it at it's widest due to producing very soft edges and let's not forget it is the heaviest out of all 3 which to me is a huge downer. The Canon 35 f2 on the other hand is your lightest and slightly sharper than the Tamron but only by a small margin if you really pixel peep. The other cool advantage on the Canon 35 is that it can stop down to f22 whereas the Tamron only at f16 which can help you achieve 1-2.5 extra seconds on your longer exposure shots when you have a ND filter on. BUT the Tamron 35 has VC which is great for when it comes to video and photos. I really love that feature and yes especially on a 35 which allows you to shoot handheld with such low shutter speed. It's just slightly heavier than the Canon but that it unnoticeable. I would personally go with the Tamron. First, I look at features that I find useful and then consider worrying about sharpness, distortion, etc. Let me know if you have any other questions :)
Usesful video, Thanks Eduardo.!
Great, thank you! Let me know if you ever have any questions. 🙏
Hi. I mostly shoot videos and from your take Tamron is preferred for video. Other than VC, which one performs better with autofocus and which one has more autofocus noise. For video in 35mm with at least f/1.8, which lens do you think is best
Heyla! I founded the Sigma to be slightly more accurate than the Tamron probably due to increased light transmission of its 1.4 aperture. However, focus noise on the Sigma was louder than the Tamron especially when taking consideration of the VC & Focus working together. I still prefer the Tamron 35mm 1.8 VC to work best for video, hands down.
Thanks :)
why u can ajust aperture manually？
Hi, how about the Tamron against the Canon 35mm F/2 Is? I juts sold my sigma 35 because of focus issues, would you recommend this Tamron for weddings over the Canon F/2?
Thanks
+Wanderley Massafelli sharpness wise are both the same, f 1.8 and f2 are also about the same the main component that will truly sell is the advantage of having VC on the Tamron which works great. I would say for shooting wedding that is extremely recommend by me it will also help alot when shooting video. Focus on the Tamron works great as well better than the Sigma, the canon from what I have experienced is only slightly faster.
Thank you so much
Nice! Is the focusing on the tamron silent? Thanks
fractal_force yes, I use my 35mm regularly and I bearly notice any noise from it's AF motor.
Very helpful 👍
Alexander Basan I am glad! Let me know if you have any questions 🙏
just subbed!
ordered the sigma 50mm f1.4 art yesterday!
also got the sigma 70-200mm f2.8 which is nice but not as good as the nikons versions!
I agree! what about the new Tamron 70-200 2.8? that's a good lens to take a closer look at.
only had it a week untill I had to send in the D800 since it stopped focusing in dark sorroundings!
I am going to borrow a D5500 untill it comes back!
A bit slow on focusing but probably worth it!
I see that the Tamron is almost as sharp at the Sigma, but how about image rendering and look? Which one produces the more pleasing images regardless of technical specifications?
And what about auto-focus accuracy and Tamron's VC accuracy (I heard that the VC can blur the image at higher shutter speeds)?
The Sigma surpasses the Tamron clearly when comparing it with any form of image rendering. For example, Color rendering: The images come out to be much richer and a bit cooler. The Sigma shines its best when its open at 1.4 which produces beautiful images, with a much smoother/dreamy bokeh. Focus accuracy is slightly better on the Sigma as well as a bit faster. I did not experience any issues with VC on my Tamron either at slow or fast shutter speed. However, it is never safe to have VC ON on any lens when the shutter speed is way beyond your safe margin. The elements are much more sensitive due to being right next to your sensor, than an average camera shake or movement. On another note I experienced this matter on my Tamron 85mm 1.8 VC and that is because the elements on the 85 are much bigger than the 35 which makes it harder for the VC motor to adjust the elements inside fast enough when shooting under higher shutter speeds.
Edoardo Marino Thanks for your excellent response. It seems that the Tamron 35 has a closer focus distance than any 35mm, including the Sigma. If you go closer and blur the background more, have you ever seen the bokeh and overall rendering exceed the Sigma?
In that case, yes. The Tamron can achieve a bit more blurred background as seen on 3:22 with the advantage of its closest focus distance. Overall rendering seems to stay the same between both of them. The Tamron takes on the advantage of achieving an additional different look than the Sigma, which steps into more of a macro photography.
@@EdoardoMarinoDodi This TAMRON SP 35mm f/1.4 Di USD is better than Sigma
What sharper??
The Sigma lens is slightly sharper.
who cares?
How's the manual focus on the Tamron for video use?
The manual focus when shooting video is nice and smooth with plenty of travel. Have to keep in mind that every Tamron that I bought including the 70-200 g2 their focus is pretty stiff when fresh out the box. But after consecutive shoots the focus ring loosens up and becomes nice and buttery. Hope this helps, let me know if you have any other questions.
Edoardo Marino Thank you for the informative answer, you have earned a subscriber ;)
+rhapsodist thank you! 🙏
Merci 🙏🏿🙏🏿
So which one is sharper and more reliable with auto focusing?
Sigma is sharper but I would say Tamron is more reliable and faster on focusing
@@EdoardoMarinoDodi Thank you. I appreciate it
How did you change the aperture with your finger? o_o
These lenses are built with traditional mechanical aperture control. There is a little pin that goes inside your camera's mount, and based on your camera setting the pin will either move up or down in order to open or close the diaphragm blades. Newer lens models like the TAMRON 85mm 1.8 VC have introduced electromagnetic diaphragm system which does not use any mechanical parts but instead electronic pulses in order to change your aperture. You can watch this on my review video: czcams.com/video/wbvhb-2DG3Q/video.htmlm22s 杨关道
Edoardo Marino i can not find any aperure control，is that because of a version difference
If you are referring to the way I open and close the aperture manually in my video, that is located at the mount of the lens, right next to the electronic connection pins there should be a little piece of metal sticking out that you can move up and down. That metal leveler is controlled mechanically by the camera when mounted in order to change apertures. Once attached the lens does not have a manual aperture feature. For the purpose of this video I used it to show how wide each lens opens up.
Yes. If you don't find the pic, you have the one with Canon EF mount. Edward has Nikon, for sure.
Is there a huge difference between F1.4 and F1.8? If not, the Tamron wins it for me.
Very minimal, and yes I agree Tamron is a win either way.
@@EdoardoMarinoDodi Thank you, Edoardo. Nice video, by the way.
how about the performance of tamron 35mm vs nikon 35mm f1.8 ?which one worth to buy?
+Satya Yaya are you referring at the 35mm 1.8 for DX bodies or the Nikkor 35mm 1.4G?
Satya Yaya Remember this, theres not a lense in the world better than the new Nikon 35mm 1.4. But who wants to spend 1500 on a 35mm lense??
I don't believe what your saying is true to be honest. When comparing a lens with a bigger aperture (1.4) the lens not only gets more light in, the depth of field is creamier, and because of the bigger glass elements, they also typically let in more pixels through your image thus resulting on a much higher resolution photo. 3rd parties lenses now days have a very reliable focus motors in fact one of my Nikkor lens the 70-300 focus motor gave out on me and my Tamron 70-200 which were bought at the same time, is still working like a champ. Lighter and cheaper does not always translate to good but perhaps a good starter lens.
@@EdoardoMarinoDodi If you look at comparative sharpness scores, like in DxOmark, you'll find that the maximum aperture and sharpness aren't necessarily related. In the case of the 35mm options, the sigma and tamron are indeed sharper than the Nikon, but not worlds sharper. For a focal length that'll be hand held most of the time, I'd consider the sharpness difference to be fairly irrelevant.
Depth of field difference is a matter of taste. Yes, there is a 2/3rd stop difference, that's a fact. My point was that most people won't have complaints at f/1.8 though.
Considering that the sigma 35 f/1.4 is so much more expensive, heavier and larger than the Nikon, I believe the Nikon to be the much better deal.
Sidenote: I never said 3rd party lenses are necessarily inferior in built quality. They aren't. But autofocus definitely isn't as reliable as on name brand glass of the same quality. That's not to say it can't be decent. But it's an advantage for Nikon compared to sigma.
This is your opinion and I fully respect that. The Nikon might be a better lens for you, but not for everyone who is trying to use a lens as creative brush than what the Nikkor has to offer. There are so many cheaper and much more reliable options in the market out there that will get you a great 35mm focal length. As I mentioned on this video the Tamron is much more versatile as it equips VR which helps you with handheld shakes and stop down your shutter speed to allow more light in. The Sigma on the other hand still retains much better glass and much more pleasing bookeh than the Tamron can it is why it's much heavier than Tamron or Nikon. I visually notice the difference, I am sure there are alot of people who noticed this difference as well, otherwise what is always the point of getting better glass if a kit lens could get you the same results? Why is it more expensive?
Can you get more macro magnification if used on an aps-c body?
Yes you can.
That depends. An APS-C camera is the exact same deal as cropping a full frame camera. If you have a high res full frame that retains the same resolution as the aps-c camera you compare it to when cropped 1.5x, then you get identical results with both. Example: A D850 on crop mode gets you pretty much identical resolution as a D500. Therefore, using a D500 does not get you any more close up than using a D850 and cropping. But if you compared a 24 mpix full frame 6D II with, say, the 30 mpix aps-c 90D, then yeah, the 90D would get you a lot more close up with the same lens.
FYI - when using crop mode (dx) on a full frame camera, you are cutting down pixels from your full frame sensor. Also the depth of field is different from what you get from a native aps sensor vs a full frame sensor.
@@EdoardoMarinoDodi That's why I said that a D850 in DX mode produces images virtually identical to a D500.
@@youknowwho9247 We don't know exactly how many pixels it cuts out from the D850 sensor but either way the depth of field still remains different for what you get from an FX sensor vs DX sensor.
Tamron 35mm F1.4 destroys both
Where is the compare lens on same conditions?!!!
Hi! What do you mean?
I mean shooting a same model in equal camera settings
Otherwise this is a bad comparison and not an indicator of the quality of the lens at all
@@user-ok4pu8zz6g I yet find hard to understand what you're asking but both lenses were brand new
In the review you did not provide photos of identical objects with the same camera settings for each lens
F1,8 vs F1,4 bad bad bad reality comparaison
This is not meant to be a 1:1 same specs comparison, but rather what can different range of money can buy you, if it’s worth it or not.
Judging by your Sigma lenses appearance it can also be used as a hammer ...lol :-)