Tamron SP 35mm ƒ/1.4 Di USD
for Canon and Nikon DSLRs
We heard from Roger Cicala of Lensrentals, who I mentioned in the "Having It All" post:
"I have not tested the Sony 35mm GM and it does seem superb; I look forward to doing so. In the meantime, however, I've gone on record: the highest resolving 35mm lens is neither the Canon or Nikon flagship, nor is it the Leica. The humble Tamron 35mm ƒ/1.4 SP is the highest resolving, just a hair better than the Sigma 35mm ƒ/1.2 Art. That's what the Sony will have to compete against."
Woo-hoo. Fight! Bring it on.
My ego is still smarting just a bit from not acknowledging that the new Sony is in fact lighter than all its current competitors (including the Tamron, which costs a mere $899). Bad blogger. So maybe I'm just being defensive, but I'll still stand by what I wrote, while acknowledging that I might be being cantankerous.
"Light, compact" 35mm ƒ/1.4 full-frame
mirrorless lens: 524g
"Big, heavy" 35mm ƒ/1.4 full-frame
mirrorless lens: 307g
The funny thing about the lens in this second picture is that the original Aspherical, when it first came out, was considered big and heavy because it was so much more so than the Leica 35mm Summiluxes that had preceded it!
The latest Leica 35mm Summilux is larger still. But, as you see at that second link, quite a bit smaller and more compact than the Sony. (If there's something a little wonky with that link, it's not my fault.)
Of course you might cry out that this is not a fair comparison because the Sony is an AF lens! The Sony is an AF lens! Well, I don't have a lot of lenses here to compare so beggars can't be choosers. I'll counter by pointing out that the Leica lens is not made of polycarbonate; the only plastic bit on it is the focusing tab.
Am I being argumentative about this? Well then I am. In any event, trust me: if lensmakers were really competing to see who could make the smallest and lightest lenses, the new Sony, nice as it is, wouldn't be in the hunt.
And what's wrong with large, heavy lenses? Nothing, if you prefer them; nothing, if you don't mind them; nothing, if you need to put up with them to get the results you want.
For me I guess the consideration comes down to this: If I'm going to carry a prime that's as bulky and weighty as a zoom, then I might as well carry the zoom.
Know it and love it
Roger's "highest resolving" is not how I'd pick a lens, no offense to the Tamron King o' the Hill. Don't care much for that. Christer Almqvist wrote in the Comments:
"Well OK, size and weight are important fact-sheet figures. And most modern pro and semi-pro lenses are so sharp you need a tripod to reap the full benefits. So for me the decisive question is: How does the lens balance with the camera and how does it fit my hands?"
That's a good criterion to use. I can get behind that.
Overall image quality is a good criterion too. But of course you're still left with the formidable task of determining what that means for you. There are lots of aspects of image quality; resolution is only one.
Being an avowed lens nut (something that is definitely not required in order to be a photographer), my criterion would go something like this: how well do you know it, and, do you love it?
Because all lenses yield their gifts. No matter how "good" or "bad" the lens, the pictures can be found that are tailor-made to the lens's properties. Photograph with any lens you love for long enough, and those gifts will be along. It's the way it seems to be.
Mike
Book o' This Week:
Peter Lindbergh On Fashion Photography, with text in English, French, and German. Original coffee table version or small 40th Anniversary version, take your pick. Both are hardcovers. The links above will spirit you away to Amazon.
Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Kirk Tuck: "I bought the hardback version of the Peter Lindbergh book and I'm really enjoying it. Seven pounds of photography for only $50 delivered. What a deal. The printing in the hardback is on very nice, especially thick paper and it's a delight. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
"35mm focal length? Meh."
Roger Cicala: "You know the best thing about TOP? It's possible to come here, stir the pot a bit, and not hear what a horrid photographer I am. :-) (Full disclosure, even I say I'm a mediocre photographer, so it doesn't hurt my feelings.) I totally agree with everything said above, but I did want to toss those third-party lenses into the discussion because I find them shockingly good for the price. I don't think they're actually better lenses than the new Sony or Leicas, but they're worth consideration. To be clear, I haven't tested the Sony or Leicas yet (not enough copies). Plus, because I have the attention span of a squirrel I've been all into field curvature the last couple of months and not doing MTF testing at all. But I will probably bake myself a crow pie when I get around to it. Sony's done some amazing lenses lately and Leica, they always do amazing lenses."
Jack: "Regarding size of lenses. I still recall my reaction when I moved from an Olympus Zuiko manual focus lens to the Canon EOS autofocus lenses. Geez they were huge in comparison and still are. Now, an APS-C lens solution is the compromise allowing smaller lenses that still have AF. The size tax on full frame lenses is significant. Sure the body can be compact, but not the lenses. And the latest sensors have allowed APS-C to achieve professional quality. You mentioned wanting lens-body balance. I want a great viewfinder. The real key now is high quality EVF in mirrorless APS-C versus crappy optical finders in DSLR APS-C cameras. Your friends at Fuji have figured it out."
John Camp: "The bottom line for us non-avowed lens nuts is that you're better off with an ƒ/1.8, almost whatever your brand. (I equivocate there because I'm not going to do the research to prove it, but I believe it to be true.) The ƒ/1.8s will be shorter, lighter and cheaper, and the differences between lenses of equivalent quality will be so subtle that you could only see it in test shots. If you're walking around with a camera, the differences would be on how well you can handle a camera, not on how fast the lens is. This is particularly true in this age of high-ISO sensors combined with auto-ISO programming. I didn't bother to research the other brands on prices, either, but would note that the excellent Nikkor Z 35mm ƒ/1.8S can be had new from B&H for $850. It is 3.4 inches long and weighs 13 ounces. The ƒ/1.4 Sony you're writing about is .8 inches longer and weighs five and a half ounces more, and—the big number—costs $550 more. For what? For undetectable differences in bokeh? For 2/3 of a stop in speed?
"I do understand the attraction of highest precision, most-capable machinery, but do think that it really has to be understood as part of a system. Heavier, more awkward machinery of ultimate quality is not necessarily better than lighter, more easily handleable machinery of almost undetectably lesser quality."
Michael: "My top criterion in selecting a lens is do I like the resultant prints. Come to think of it, that’s my second and third criteria as well."