TEST: At angles is popular lens and works for many different motives. We have tested three news items to see which is sharp and best for you. Here you’ll find three variations in different price classes but that are close to each other in terms of performance. Which should you choose?
The oextrema at the angle, that is, between about 20 and 35 millimeter, is often considered a focal length that is good to very. They are vidvinkligare than normal (50 mm), but not so vidvinkliga that the distortion is a problem or that the perspective is becoming strange. Perfect for when you want to get with a little more but still want to keep a natural look. In addition, you can assemble them on an aps-c sensor, you get the equivalent of about a normal lens, that is around 50 millimetres. Why should these lenses to be more popular than 50: an in many of the beginners who buy their first lens after kitzoomen. In that group are now 50: an overwhelmingly popular, the reasons are many, but perhaps above all to 50: an often are a bit cheaper. Almost all manufacturers have a lens between 24 and 35 mm in its in its range and they are liked by many for its versatility.
We have looked at a few lenses that are vidvinkligare than 50 and slightly more expensive than the cheaper standard lenses. Something for those who want to take their photography to a small level to, or for the professional photographer that wants to have a good focus on lenses, but wants to challenge himself with a fixed focal length lens instead of a zoom.
Canon EF 35 mm f/1, 4 l II USM
Canon itself says that it is an ideal lens for news photographer who wants light tyrka, quick and safe auto focus and of course really good picture quality. When you get the lens in my hand do you become almost puzzled about the fact a 35: a man picked up.And if you look at the physical specifications disclosed that there are about one centimeter shorter and 100 grams lighter than standard zoom Canon 24-70 f/2.8. With a weight of just over 700 grams and a length of around 10 centimeters, it is a solid piece. It inspires confidence even if it weighs on in the camera bag.
But it is also brighter than Tamronobjektivet we also test, which is smaller and lighter. Compare it with the Sigma 20 mm f/1.4 weighs 200 grams, is smaller and Canon is slightly shorter. But when we compare with a lens that has fifteen millimetres shorter focal length as well, which in turn requires a more domed and thus heavier front lens.
In Canon lenses, Canon has stopped in a new technology, for better picture quality. This technique is called BR (Blue Spectrum Refractive). This means that in a composite linselemente bake it into an organic optical materials on a better way to break the blue light. This should in turn lead to reduced chromatic aberration and therefore also higher sharpness.
Canon lens features a ring-type USM motor which works to focus should end up in the right place. And it’s hard to say that it does a poor job.It is not the fastest focus I experienced, but it cannot be blamed for being slow. A low dragging sound when the lens is focused, but it’s nothing that interferes in any way. An advantage of Canonobjektivet is that, despite the fact that there is a focus switch on the lens, has chosen to let you use the focus ring no matter if autofocus is turned on or not.
If you have the focus set to AF-button instead of the shutter button on the camera, you can choose if you want to focus manually, or if you want to leave it for the camera. The focus ring is wide, välgummerad and with a moderate resistance. A small little glitches can be felt when focusing manually, but it is going to very expensive designs for such a thing should not be noticed by. It’s nothing that bothers when shooting in all cases.
Canon lens shows an incredibly good image quality in our tests. Best in test. It should also be added that it is tested with a 5DS R which is the most high-resolution mirror reflex camera on the market. Mittskärpan is so high at the largest aperture that it is difficult to see any difference when dazzled down.
There is some vignetting at maximum aperture, but it gradually decreases down to f/4 since it is unaffected irrespective of how much you glare down. Any chromatic abberration or distortion to talk about, it is not.
On the whole, is Canon’s new 35: a really nice to shoot with. It focuses quickly and safely, regardless of whether you run manually or automatically. Although the weight sometimes makes itself felt. The lens does a not at all insignificant sum more than both Tamron and Sigma, more than twice as much, in fact, but the sharpness is also higher. So if you really want Canonobjektiv to their Canonkamera, or simply want the best and have a Canonkamera, yes then you should take a look at Canon’s own 35 mm.
Tamron SP 35 mm f/1.8 DI VC USD
SP is Tamron’s fräsigaste series. » SP «stands for Superior Performance, according to the Tamron does not mince words, you could say.Tamron has previously most made themselves known for their zoom lenses, including 15 to 30 that we tested in the number 6/2015. But they have long had a solid 90 mm macro as been very appreciated, much due to its combination of price and performance.
In an interview with Per forest at Focus Nordic, which imports the Tamron in Sweden, we are told that the Tamron chose to let the aperture stop at f/1.8 instead of going all the way to f/1.4 in order to save weight and size. Something that may be a wise choice, adjust the Canonobjektivet next to the Tamron, so is the size difference clear. The importance is different, Tamronen is about 300 grams lighter than the Canon.
Another big difference is that the Tamron’s lenses is offered to the image stabilization (Canon-and Nikon-ceptions, variant of Sony has scrapped it because stabilization is in Sony’s camera bodies) which in a way makes up for not having the final step in the brightness down to f/1.4. Fixed image stabilization allows for slower shutter speeds than what an aperture of f/1.4 allows so that way is Tamronen a snap sharper.However, losing a bit of the depth of field.
Sometimes skimp manufacturer down on the construction of lenses with Aperture f/1.8, but it doesn’t have the Tamron made. Albeit lighter than the Canon and the Sigma and Tamron film here feels real sturdy in construction. Also you can use the focus ring without the focus is set to manual, an advantage for those who like to set the focus manually. On the lens is switch for focus and image stabilization, great if you want to save battery power.
Focusing is slightly slower than the Canon, not so much that it interferes with, but it is evident when one lets the focus go from infinity to focusing distance. The minimum focusing distance, however, is something that is nice with Tamron’s optics. It is located at 20 centimeters which allows you to get really close, nice and useful!
Tamron succeed even with its 35: (a) to deliver really good picture quality. It’s not as sharp as Canonobjektivet, but it is very good. Acuity WINS that dazzled down something to f/2, then the contrast is slightly lower at maximum aperture.
As in Canonobjektivet reduces the vignetting stopped down to f/4, but then is it unchanged through the rest of the range. The images are disturbed nor chromatic abberration or distortion.
Tamron delivers a good feeling and a good technique for a pretty cheap price. Something that’s kind of their thing. The image stabilizer makes the lens can be used even though the light is really bad, something like the Canon and Sigma may struggle more with despite its higher light sensitivity.
The importance is of course also a positive experience in comparison with Canon and Sigma. If you don’t want to, can or should pay Canonobjektivet costs so you have the Tamron a very good alternative that costs less than half as much but the performance is very good though. You also get image stabilization in the bargain.
Sigma 20 mm F1.4 DG HSM
Sigma’s Art series has since it launched a great praise.And when you take the new 20 mm f/1.4 in your hand so you will understand why.Byggkvaliten feels really, really good, and despite it’s price is not close to what other lenses with the same feeling. Sigma 20 mm f/1,4 DG HSM is, perhaps obviously, more vidvinkligt than the other two lenses we test in this issue. Something that contributes to weight is higher and big play bigger.
Sigmat weighs 200 grams more than the Canon lens, 950 grams, and is approaching 13 centimeters long. Weight contributes so clearly to the rustic feeling, but it also allows lens, an imbalance when it is mounted on a camera that doesn’t have a battery grip. On a D800 will be the camera noticeably top-heavy, it solves it relatively easily by holding the lens instead of in camera with the left hand, but it complicates the enhandsfotografering very much. The autofocus is in class with Canon, and therefore a bit faster than the Tamron, but I find it hard to believe that it would be a crucial difference in especially many situations. Sonically located it in the same class as the other two in the test. Not disruptive, but not silent.
As well as on the other two lenses can focus manually even though the autofocus is turned on. A nice feature, which also feels good on Sigman when the focus ring is really beautiful. The best feeling in the test, actually.
We chose to test this model from Sigma because it is newer on the market. There is both a 24 and a 35: (a) in the same sequence with the same build quality, so if you are more hungry for a 35: a is the size about 300 grams lighter and pretty much shorter. In terms of size, makes it to the lens ports in the same class as Tamronobjektivet (albeit roughly 200 grams heavier).
Sigma 20 mm f/1,4 manages to perform very well in our tests. The sharpness at full opening is good, but will be slightly better if you glare down to f/2, as with Tamron’s lenses. Other values are very similar Tamron but vignetting is getting better all the way down to f/5.6. The Sigma has no more vignetting is not so strange because it has a 15 mm shorter focal length. The distortion is also slightly more noticeable here, but it also depends on the difference in focal length.
Sigma has gone from strength to strength with its Art show. When we tested the 50-millimetersobjektiv in number 5/2015 was the Sigma who emerged victorious, the battle here is very good, even if it gets a little whip of Canon in terms of sharpness. Sigma manages to get to a build quality and image quality that feels so good for a price that is surprisingly low is impressive. And very nice for the buyer in mind.
Which of these lenses you choose probably depends on what kind of photographer you are. If you have a Canonkamera and want the highest possible image quality, aiming at the Canon’s own lens. But if your wallet is a little thinner or you just don’t think it’s worth putting out over 20,000 dollars on a lens is none of the other a bad option either. Tamron delivers image stabilization and Sigma provides a really nice feeling and a slightly wider aperture. Which of these you can only determine a priority.