this lens is pretty darn sharp up to f11 on the Nikon D850 (w/Lens calibration) and crazy sharp on the Z mount... it does have some CA wide open but clears up around F3.5 it so good I sold the Nikon 85mm 1.4g and the Sigma 85mm 1.4 (sigma was sharper but colors and AF were terrible)
Tell you what, I feel like that lens needs to be compared to the 85 F/2 RF. I think I will make that video! Thanks for the idea. Hopefully, I get better results out of both lenses.
@@DevynFromCFXTV BTW: the Nikon 85mm 1.8s blows both Tamron and Sigma out the water. I'm sure you can say the same about the mirrorless Canon 85mm. But all things being real: the Tamron is a great lens and it's really sharp. Good luck retesting
Tried to hear you out, but you lost me half way in. Just a quick aside. 1. You may have had a bad copy. 2. I'm not sure why the lens looked better at f/2.8 (sharper) than it did at f/4 - that seemed odd, 3. Several incorrect statements back to back at 4:44 seconds - talking about "any prime lenses, typically have a wider aperture (not always), that let more light into the camera (correct), thus giving you better image quality (again, not always as many prime lenses are not as sharp wide open), "expanding your exposure triangle at any given shutter speed and ISO". Say what? Deep breath - 1. You're a nice guy, please do some research. There is no such thing as an exposure triangle in digital photography. I could link lots of videos here on the topic, or you could read Joe Edelman's blog on the review of the term and where it came from and what it was meant to suggest. Call it a photography triangle would be more accurate - even though that isn't exactly correct either. DIGITAL EXPOSURE is created (99 percent of the time) only by the light that enters your camera - and that is only determined by the size of the aperture and shutter speed (See Karl Taylor's description for just one). ISO is simply (almost always) a boost in gain, amplifying the S/N equally - although the engineers sometimes have fancy tricks added in. With ISO invariant sensors, you can shoot a photo underexposed at ISO 100 and bring it up 2 stops to ISO 400 in post and it will look virtually identical to a shot taken at ISO 400. Now, I know what you mean. The only way to improve signal to noise is to add photons of light by slowing the shutter speed down, or opening the aperture - i.e. with a wider aperture, you let in more light at the same shutter speed, and get a greater exposure - good for the shadows, not so much for the highlights as there is already a lot of information there. I own several Tamron lenses for Nikon f-mount. The 35mm f/1.4 was incredibly sharp. I almost purchased the 85mm, but switched to mirrorless. You should try another copy of this lens and see if you get the same results.
Yes I agree! The charts seemed off. 3rd Parties tend to have quality control variations. Tell you what, I feel like that lens needs to be compared to the 85 F/2 RF. I think I will make that video! Thanks for the idea. Hopefully, I get better results out of both lenses.
Thanks for the review! Love the background. Take care, Anna
The tamron sp 45mm F1.8 usd on aps-c from sony was very good sharp with beautiful colours i'm hoping the 85mm is better at least some reviews say it's
this lens is pretty darn sharp up to f11 on the Nikon D850 (w/Lens calibration) and crazy sharp on the Z mount... it does have some CA wide open but clears up around F3.5
it so good I sold the Nikon 85mm 1.4g and the Sigma 85mm 1.4 (sigma was sharper but colors and AF were terrible)
Someone told me that I should try another copy. I really want this one to work well lol
Tell you what, I feel like that lens needs to be compared to the 85 F/2 RF. I think I will make that video! Thanks for the idea. Hopefully, I get better results out of both lenses.
@@DevynFromCFXTV BTW: the Nikon 85mm 1.8s blows both Tamron and Sigma out the water. I'm sure you can say the same about the mirrorless Canon 85mm.
But all things being real: the Tamron is a great lens and it's really sharp.
Good luck retesting
@@LMoProVisualComm Yeah Tamron is! I gotta figure it out, thanks
Tried to hear you out, but you lost me half way in. Just a quick aside. 1. You may have had a bad copy. 2. I'm not sure why the lens looked better at f/2.8 (sharper) than it did at f/4 - that seemed odd, 3. Several incorrect statements back to back at 4:44 seconds - talking about "any prime lenses, typically have a wider aperture (not always), that let more light into the camera (correct), thus giving you better image quality (again, not always as many prime lenses are not as sharp wide open), "expanding your exposure triangle at any given shutter speed and ISO". Say what? Deep breath - 1. You're a nice guy, please do some research. There is no such thing as an exposure triangle in digital photography. I could link lots of videos here on the topic, or you could read Joe Edelman's blog on the review of the term and where it came from and what it was meant to suggest. Call it a photography triangle would be more accurate - even though that isn't exactly correct either. DIGITAL EXPOSURE is created (99 percent of the time) only by the light that enters your camera - and that is only determined by the size of the aperture and shutter speed (See Karl Taylor's description for just one). ISO is simply (almost always) a boost in gain, amplifying the S/N equally - although the engineers sometimes have fancy tricks added in. With ISO invariant sensors, you can shoot a photo underexposed at ISO 100 and bring it up 2 stops to ISO 400 in post and it will look virtually identical to a shot taken at ISO 400. Now, I know what you mean. The only way to improve signal to noise is to add photons of light by slowing the shutter speed down, or opening the aperture - i.e. with a wider aperture, you let in more light at the same shutter speed, and get a greater exposure - good for the shadows, not so much for the highlights as there is already a lot of information there. I own several Tamron lenses for Nikon f-mount. The 35mm f/1.4 was incredibly sharp. I almost purchased the 85mm, but switched to mirrorless. You should try another copy of this lens and see if you get the same results.
Yeah that happens allot with 3rd party lenses. I really wanted this lens to work out. Maybe I'll look into another
Yes I agree! The charts seemed off. 3rd Parties tend to have quality control variations. Tell you what, I feel like that lens needs to be compared to the 85 F/2 RF. I think I will make that video! Thanks for the idea. Hopefully, I get better results out of both lenses.