Here something about CA and onion rings in the Bokeh. Here I like the Sigma better because it seems to be minimally sharper. Left the sigma, right the tamron.Īs you can see, you can't go wrong with any lens. All pictures are taken from a tripod and with remote control.įirst the middle. The crops (red rectangle) are from the middle, the third and the corner. Here the comparison in the close range (~2 meters). Maybe I will make a comparison and post this weekend.

My Sigma copy is sharper than my Tamron copy. I even like the bokeh on the Tamron (ok, I like the Sigma a bit better). Kraków - nightly walk by Rafael Wagner, auf Flickr On the Tamron the sunstars are, they are better defined than on the Sigma. The Sigma is almost an apochromatic lens. The Tamron has a little more CA and LoCA. I figure that I have the Tamron 45 f1.8 already, why would I need the Sigma 40 Art when all of my lenses are all Sigma ART.hehehehe. Right there with the 135 f1.8 and my 200 f2 VR. Went with the Sigma 40 f1.4 Art and it's truly amazing. Never had a Tamron lens that AF'd worth a crap. That's part of what had me thinking about it again! Both seem like something special. They had a deal zone deal on it in December.but only the E-mount version. I, too, thought about it, but the 28mm Art fits my uses better. It's a fantastic lens and you should buy it. Both are modern and regarded as top notch wide-normal fast primes, where size is no object.Īfter spending a lot of last year refining and narrowing down my lineup, neither fit in-but both are probably lenses I would jump on for the right price.both seem to have that lusty quality 😂.ĭon't have any experience with the Tamron (I own the Sigma) but there's a fairly significant difference in size and weight between the two.ī&H had the Sigma 40mm 1.4 on sale last week for $999. Something I was wondering about the other day, curious if anyone has had hands on with both.

Tamron 35mm 1.4