Canon 35 F2, Tamron 35 F1.4, or Sigma 35 F1.4 ART?

I used to own the Canon 35 F2 IS USM but sold it and have regretted it since about 2 months after selling it. Now I'm looking at snatching up another 35mm but can't decide on which one. Opinions? I'll be used for outdoor portraits (once this whole pandemic is over). Anyone have images with the Tammy 35 1.4?

I'm with you. Sold mine 35 f2 and why?

https://www.kenrockwel​l.com/canon/lenses/35m​m-f2.htm

rivas8409 wrote in post #19044192
I used to own the Canon 35 f2 but sold it and have regretted it since about 2 months after selling it. Now I'm looking at snatching up another 35mm but can't decide on which one. Opinions? I'll be used for outdoor portraits (once this whole pandemic is over). Anyone have images with the Tammy 35 1.4?

Are you talking about the old discontinued Canon 35 mm f/2 or the current and far superior 35mm f/2 IS USM? The two versions have very little in common.

The 35 F2 IS USM.

It depends on whether or not you need F1.4 or would prefer the IS. The only time that I wanted a larger aperture than F2 was when taking photos at a zombie walk at night. I was using a T2i crop camera so I was limited in how high I could set ISO. If you are doing lots of night shooting of people and you don’t want to use full frame, then there are clear advantages to wider apertures, since this will let you boost shutter speeds in very low light.

For my purposes, I would much rather have IS and a more compact lens. If I can see it, I can photograph it with the 35F2IS on my 6D. The 35F2IS (or 35F2) is very useful for night photography and low light.

If you want F1.4, the 35F2 IS won’t give you that. Personally, I have enough 35mm lenses and have no desire to get a lens with a larger aperture. If I did, it would be the Canon for fast and reliable AF.

rivas8409 wrote in post #19044364
The 35 F2 IS USM.

Right, the reason I ask is because kf095 provideed an old link to a review of the original 30 year old version.

If you do not need the shallow depth of field of f/1.4 then I would go for another copy of the Canon 35mn f/2. The IS has always been a game-changer for me.

In addition, the t-stop factor as tested by dxomark for the Canon is 2, equal to it's maximum aperture, which means it lets in the maximum amount of light. Most lenses let in less light, often a 1/3 to half a stop less light than their maximum aperture might suggest. As a result, the other 35 mm f/1.4 lenses you are looking at do not give you a full stop more light than the Canon 35 f/2 IS.

To sum up, the Canon is lightweight, modest in size, very sharp with good contrast, reasonably priced, lets in the maximum amount of light for its aperture, and has 4 stops of IS. Of course, you probably can't go wrong with any of the choices on your list.

I'm in the same boat, but looking at the RF 35mm instead. I think I'll be going with Canon as the IS is likely to be far more valuable than less than a stop of light from the Tamron and Sigma at the cost of size and weight. From comparisons online, it's hard for me to tell the difference between 1.8 and 1.4 as well. The Tamron is enticing though for the price, sharpness, and ruggedness (the only 35 non L lens with weather sealing?).

Tamron !

I had the Canon 35mm f2 IS but traded it in for the Tamron 35mm 1.8. I shoot weddings as a freelancer for multiple studios so can’t share any image but I find the Tamron to be slightly better in AF and 1.8 helps when I can’t use flash because of videographers around me (especially during getting ready sessions). I don’t regret the decision. When I purchased Tamron, the 1.4 version wasn’t out yet otherwise I would have rented it first to see the difference. I usually prefer lenses with IS tough so most likely would have still gone with the 1.8. In the last two years of owning the lens, I can’t recall any incident of missing a shot because I didn’t have the 1.4 lens.

AcademicNomad wrote in post #19094471
I had the Canon 35mm f2 IS but traded it in for the Tamron 35mm 1.8. I shoot weddings as a freelancer for multiple studios so can’t share any image but I find the Tamron to be slightly better in AF and 1.8 helps when I can’t use flash because of videographers around me (especially during getting ready sessions). I don’t regret the decision. When I purchased Tamron, the 1.4 version wasn’t out yet otherwise I would have rented it first to see the difference. I usually prefer lenses with IS tough so most likely would have still gone with the 1.8. In the last two years of owning the lens, I can’t recall any incident of missing a shot because I didn’t have the 1.4 lens.

If you prefer the Tamron, that's great, but it is not as sharp in the center of the frame and doesn't let in more light then the Canon EF 35mm IS USM. According to DXOMark tests the Canon EF 35m f/2 IS USM is significantly sharper than the Tamron SP 35mm F1.8 Di VC USD. On a 5D Mark IV, as an example, the sharpness of the Canon is rated by them at 25 P-Mpix vs 17 P-Mpix for the Tamron. With a tStop of 2 the Canon also let's in more light at f/2 then the Tamron with a tStop of 2.1 does at f/1.8. I can't speak to the AF which you may prefer. DXOMark gives an overall rating of 37 for the Canon 35mm vs 31 for the Tamron. The Tamron does better the Canon a bit in a few other categories. And of course, at f/1.8 the DoF is slightly shallower. But, for low light photography without a flash, the better light transmission of the Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM and its greater sharpness in the center of the frame, make that lens my preferred choice over the Tamron. But, in the end, it comes down to personal preference and you can't go wrong with either one.


https://www.dxomark.co​m …_1106_1086_1106​_1056_1106

Perhaps it was the slightly shallower depth of field that made be like the Tamron. Thank you for letting me know about the t-stop difference. When weddings start again, I will rent the 35 f2 and I will switch between them to see the difference.

AcademicNomad wrote in post #19094774
Perhaps it was the slightly shallower depth of field that made be like the Tamron. Thank you for letting me know about the t-stop difference. When weddings start again, I will rent the 35 f2 and I will switch between them to see the difference.

It seems you already compared them and made the decision to go with the Tamron. Unless you're unhappy with it, why go through the process again?

F2 didn’t get an extensive use before I traded it in. Never had both at the same time. Doesn’t hurt to give one to the second shooter when I am on a tele. And then use the other myself during bridal prep (one of the most creative parts of my day).

I'm a little late to the thread but I own both the Canon 35mm f2 IS USM and the Tamron 35mm f1.4. The Canon is great, and the IS is great for video or lowlight and it's pretty sharp. I like it a lot. However, the Tamron is the best lens I have ever used. It looked perfect wide open on my 50mp Canon 5DS, and stopped down it's great too. Focus accuracy is great and speed wise I'd say it's at least the same as the Canon. Unless you absolutely need the IS, go for the Tamron!

Ended up going with the Tamron 35mm F1.4. So far I'm not disappointed!