Tamron SP 45mm F1.8 VC and SP 35mm F1.8 VC

The 45mm f/1.8 VC is disappointing for me simply because of the size and weight. I need a fast standard prime lens for travel purpose and my Sigma 50 f/1.4 (non-art) is a bit heavy for that. The 50 f/1.8 II I have isn't good wide open. I expected this 45 f/1.8 VC would be around the same weight as the Sony FE 55 f/1.8 , i.e. less than 300g). Somehow this 45 f/1.8 is even heavier than the Sigma with 2/3 stops slower speed. I guess I'll have to get a 50 f/1.8 STM then.

genjurok wrote in post #17692353
The 45mm f/1.8 VC is disappointing for me simply because of the size and weight. I need a fast standard prime lens for travel purpose and my Sigma 50 f/1.4 (non-art) is a bit heavy for that. The 50 f/1.8 II I have isn't good wide open. I expected this 45 f/1.8 VC would be around the same weight as the Sony FE 55 f/1.8 , i.e. less than 300g). Somehow this 45 f/1.8 is even heavier than the Sigma with 2/3 stops slower speed. I guess I'll have to get a 50 f/1.8 STM then.

Stabilization in the lens adds to weight.

Something the 50's across the board totally lack.

Very best,

genjurok wrote in post #17692353
The 45mm f/1.8 VC is disappointing for me simply because of the size and weight. I need a fast standard prime lens for travel purpose and my Sigma 50 f/1.4 (non-art) is a bit heavy for that. The 50 f/1.8 II I have isn't good wide open. I expected this 45 f/1.8 VC would be around the same weight as the Sony FE 55 f/1.8 , i.e. less than 300g). Somehow this 45 f/1.8 is even heavier than the Sigma with 2/3 stops slower speed. I guess I'll have to get a 50 f/1.8 STM then.

it's 540g, how is that heavier than the sigma?

the bokeh is borderline amazing from the samples

Charlie wrote in post #17692366
it's 540g, how is that heavier than the sigma?

the bokeh is borderline amazing from the samples

I said non-art. And the Sigma 50 (non-ART) is regarded as bokehlicious by many people too.
Anyway I'm not saying this 45 f/1.8 VC isn't a good lens. Just not exactly what I need, that's it.

MalVeauX wrote in post #17692358
Stabilization in the lens adds to weight.

Something the 50's across the board totally lack.

Very best,

Still the FE 55 f/1.8 with stellar optics is only 280g vs the 45 f/1.8 VC 540g (nearly doubled).
Does the addition of VC really need to be at the expense of almost doubled weight?

i think it's strange that they are so close in focal length...i'd think a 35mm, and 55mm would be better...there'd be a chance people would buy both...here i think it's going to be one or the other for most people...oh well, can't complain about more options...

genjurok wrote in post #17692370
Still the FE 55 f/1.8 with stellar optics is only 280g vs the 45 f/1.8 VC 540g (nearly doubled).
Does the addition of VC really need to be at the expense of almost doubled weight?

I highly doubt it's the VC causing the weight, but unique design of close focus. The specs are closest related to the Zeiss 50mm macro planar, which weighs in 500+ grams as well.

The 45 weighs as much as the Tamron 90 mm VC macro lens (less 10 grams). It might be attractive if sharp and if the AF is fast and accurate in low light.
The lens won't look good to me if AF is slow and inconsistent. I have read some complaints of slow operation on VC in some Tamron lenses. That could be a potential problem, and could be camera related.

I'm in for the 45mm at this point For video this is a breath of fresh air. I do agree with Dre, the FL's are a little too close to one another.

Talley wrote in post #17692304
Yup I agree. However if the AF/IQ performs anywhere near their 70-200 then I think it'll do fine. It's 1/3 stop quicker and will have weather sealing and in the end their price will drop to be cheaper than the Canon.

For 599 I'll buy one and test it out. 7.9" focusing is pretty close focusing too however that is a feature I won't find that useful.

Yeah, although weather sealing and a metal body perked my interest. Tbh, more interested in their 45mm f/1.8 b.c. Canon doesn't have a sharp 50 yet. Hoping that Canon will out the 50mm f/1.2L II by then, but if I need an interim and the Tamron focuses well, I might look into picking one up if it's cheap. If it focuses like my old studio's Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 SP VC, forget it though.

Any verdict on these lenses? If the autofocus tests out alright I'm adding the 45mm.

wallstreetoneil had some good things to say about the 45 recently, I think in the 1DX2 thread

so many choices, especially in the 35mm FL:

canon f1.4L
canon f1.4 L v2
sigma f1.4 art
tamron f1.8 VC
canon f2 IS
yongnuo f2

how do you choose, especially when the 1.4L v1 can be had used for about the same cost as the sigma, the canon and tammy in the same ballpark, and then yongnuo being the budget entry

obviously 1.4 vs 1.8 vs. 2 is a big deal, but if the 1.4L v1 isnt sharp until f2 anyway, and sigma has focus issues, how do you balance speed vs sharpness/focusing

ekinnyc wrote in post #18034050
how do you balance speed vs sharpness/focusing

Money. You throw money at the problem.

LOL!

seems like the 1.8 VC is a good middle ground between the 35mm 1.4 choices, and the f/2 IS

every review i've read so far mentions that the tamron AF isnt as fast as the others - yet noone mentions what "slower" means - has anyone done any real-world comparisons of what "slower" AF means compared to something like the L, sigma, or the f/2