Tannin
15-03-2018, 8:55pm
In a moment of weakness last weekend, I ordered a Tamron 85mm f/1.8 DI VC from Digital Camera Warehouse. They had them on special at $691, which is 10% off the usual price and (amazingly enough) significantly cheaper than the same lens on grey import from DWI. ($150-odd less if I remember correctly.)
I've never bought from DCW before, but they are supposed to be OK. Sure enough, it arrived next day, which was very impressive. Full marks there.
The lens itself is very solidly made (more like a Tokina than what you'd expect from Tamron), a bit bulkier and heavier than I'd really like but way, way smaller than most of the 85/1.4s, and all-metal.
I've wanted an 85 for years, ever since I lent-forever my beautiful little Canon 60mm macro to a friend. I used to love the 60mm macro for landscape and general photography in particular: that bit-less-than-100mm field of view brings out the creative side of me. Two things let it down: (1) it's EF-S and doesn't work on my current bodies; (ii) it really misses IS. I bought a Canon 100/2.8L IS macro years ago to replace it, but though I like the 100 for macro work, it's just a little bit too long for the sort of things I mostly used the 60 for.
But what to replace it with? 85mm is the perfect length for what I wanted - just slightly wider than the 94mm equivalent of a 60mm lens on crop - but which one? I don't need it super fast (f/2.8 was usually plenty) and it's a length I don't use all that often but, when I want it, I really want it. So something not too bulky and heavy was required. For the same reason, I didn't want to spend $2000+ on a best-of-breed lens, not for something that doesn't get used all the time. I remember replacing my stolen Tokina 35/2.8 (which I was perfectly happy with) with a big, mega-expensive, heavy Canon 35/1.4L. That was a mistake. I don't use it enough to justify the cost, and I use it even less than I'd like to because it's big and heavy and I often do't have it with me.
The Canon 85/1.2L is huge and mega-expensive at around $2400. Scratch that.
The new Canon 85/1.4L IS is almost as huge as the 85/1.2 and just as mega-expensive. Apparently it is superb optically and probably the best auto-focus 85mm lens made anywhere, and it one of the only two that have IS. But money aside, it's just too damn big and clumsy. Scratch that one too.
The Sigma Art 85/1.4 is optically excellent (though shaded by the Canon 85/1.4, and possibly the 85/1.2 as well, depending on who you talk to) and at around $1400 is do-able, though more than I want to spend on a second-line lens. (Remember, I'm only after a part-timer.) But it doesn't have IS, and it's very heavy and too bulky. Scratch that one.
Tokina don''t make an 85. (Pity, I like Tokina lenses.)
The new Tamron 85/1.8 gets very good reviews and is not much more than half the price of the Sigma Art. It is the only one other than the new Canon 1.4 to have IS. Optically it is said to be inferior to the Canon 1.4 (but so is everything else), about equal to the Sigma Art, superior to the Nikon G (so I'm told) and well in front of the ancient little Canon 1.8. It's a bit too big and heavy for what it is, but quite acceptable. I can live with having this one in my shoulder bag just in case I want it. Attractively to me, the Tamron's particular strength is mid-frame and corner clarity. Most other 85s test best in the centre and are weak in the corners and mid-frame, but the Tamron maintains its sharpness right to the edges. For me, doing mostly landscapes, this is a big benefit. Edge-to-edge sharp is what I need. It has excellent distortion (as you would expect in any 85) and CA is especially well controlled (another vital landscape lens quality). Its main weakness is vignetting wide-open, which is quite strong. That's the easiest of all problems to fix in post, so if you are going to have an issue (which is inevitable with any lens not costing multiple thousands of dollars), this is the best one to have, I reckon. And it takes a standard 67mm filter. Seems the perfect answer.
The ancient Canon 85/1.8 is said to be remarkably good considering that it was designed before half of us here were born. Many AP users have owned them and said good things. It is lovely and small, but perhaps a bit on the flimsy side for field trips, not much good wide open, and doesn't have IS. Against that, it's very good value for money at not much more than half the price of the Tamron 1.8.
I've never owned a Tamron lens, and tend to be a bit suspicious of them (as I am of Sigma products). But everyone says that both have improved a great deal over the last few years, so let's put that to the test.
I'm looking forward to trying this one out.
I've never bought from DCW before, but they are supposed to be OK. Sure enough, it arrived next day, which was very impressive. Full marks there.
The lens itself is very solidly made (more like a Tokina than what you'd expect from Tamron), a bit bulkier and heavier than I'd really like but way, way smaller than most of the 85/1.4s, and all-metal.
I've wanted an 85 for years, ever since I lent-forever my beautiful little Canon 60mm macro to a friend. I used to love the 60mm macro for landscape and general photography in particular: that bit-less-than-100mm field of view brings out the creative side of me. Two things let it down: (1) it's EF-S and doesn't work on my current bodies; (ii) it really misses IS. I bought a Canon 100/2.8L IS macro years ago to replace it, but though I like the 100 for macro work, it's just a little bit too long for the sort of things I mostly used the 60 for.
But what to replace it with? 85mm is the perfect length for what I wanted - just slightly wider than the 94mm equivalent of a 60mm lens on crop - but which one? I don't need it super fast (f/2.8 was usually plenty) and it's a length I don't use all that often but, when I want it, I really want it. So something not too bulky and heavy was required. For the same reason, I didn't want to spend $2000+ on a best-of-breed lens, not for something that doesn't get used all the time. I remember replacing my stolen Tokina 35/2.8 (which I was perfectly happy with) with a big, mega-expensive, heavy Canon 35/1.4L. That was a mistake. I don't use it enough to justify the cost, and I use it even less than I'd like to because it's big and heavy and I often do't have it with me.
The Canon 85/1.2L is huge and mega-expensive at around $2400. Scratch that.
The new Canon 85/1.4L IS is almost as huge as the 85/1.2 and just as mega-expensive. Apparently it is superb optically and probably the best auto-focus 85mm lens made anywhere, and it one of the only two that have IS. But money aside, it's just too damn big and clumsy. Scratch that one too.
The Sigma Art 85/1.4 is optically excellent (though shaded by the Canon 85/1.4, and possibly the 85/1.2 as well, depending on who you talk to) and at around $1400 is do-able, though more than I want to spend on a second-line lens. (Remember, I'm only after a part-timer.) But it doesn't have IS, and it's very heavy and too bulky. Scratch that one.
Tokina don''t make an 85. (Pity, I like Tokina lenses.)
The new Tamron 85/1.8 gets very good reviews and is not much more than half the price of the Sigma Art. It is the only one other than the new Canon 1.4 to have IS. Optically it is said to be inferior to the Canon 1.4 (but so is everything else), about equal to the Sigma Art, superior to the Nikon G (so I'm told) and well in front of the ancient little Canon 1.8. It's a bit too big and heavy for what it is, but quite acceptable. I can live with having this one in my shoulder bag just in case I want it. Attractively to me, the Tamron's particular strength is mid-frame and corner clarity. Most other 85s test best in the centre and are weak in the corners and mid-frame, but the Tamron maintains its sharpness right to the edges. For me, doing mostly landscapes, this is a big benefit. Edge-to-edge sharp is what I need. It has excellent distortion (as you would expect in any 85) and CA is especially well controlled (another vital landscape lens quality). Its main weakness is vignetting wide-open, which is quite strong. That's the easiest of all problems to fix in post, so if you are going to have an issue (which is inevitable with any lens not costing multiple thousands of dollars), this is the best one to have, I reckon. And it takes a standard 67mm filter. Seems the perfect answer.
The ancient Canon 85/1.8 is said to be remarkably good considering that it was designed before half of us here were born. Many AP users have owned them and said good things. It is lovely and small, but perhaps a bit on the flimsy side for field trips, not much good wide open, and doesn't have IS. Against that, it's very good value for money at not much more than half the price of the Tamron 1.8.
I've never owned a Tamron lens, and tend to be a bit suspicious of them (as I am of Sigma products). But everyone says that both have improved a great deal over the last few years, so let's put that to the test.
I'm looking forward to trying this one out.