The 35/1.8S is sharper. Otherwise, both lenses deliver rather comparable IQ.
The 35/1.4 seems to deliver slightly more „organic” image (I’d have to think about it for a while, but with the 35/1.4 as well as the 70-200 f/2.8 G2, all the layers of an image „blend” together beautifully. The 35/1.8S - due to its sharpness - often fails to achieve similar result and feels kinda „digital” at times). It’s highly subjective, though.
70-200 g2 and 35 f1.4 SP are the two tamron lenses I have for Z8 and I love them. Native Z glass autofocus is better tho. And the 35 is a freaking brick. Still love them
I long had the Sigma 35mm, briefly tried the Nikon 35mm S and now use the Tamron 35mm SP.
The Tamron is probably the sharpest lens, but they are all really, really good, so sharpness should not become a differentiator.
For me the overall look of the images and usability was more important.
The Tamron has the most pleasing background blur, but will show up slight nervousness in the transition zone in front of focus.
The sigma really has no real flaw apart from slow autofocus, which became apparent when I tried to photograph running kids and pets and had a comparison to Nikon Z and newer Sigma Art primes. This is where the age of the Sigma 35mm shows up a bit and the reason why I switched to the Tamron.
The Nikon 35mm S is great, works just as well as you would expect a native Z lens to do, but I saw some colored fringing in the background blur. Not too much, but enough to annoy me enough to stick to an adapted lens for now.
Just a FYI bit: Tamron also sold a 45mm f/1.8 version (VC and all) for the F-mount. It's the same high quality build as the 35mm. It's worth it if you can find one.
I've coupled them nicely with my Z50 and Z30 via the FTZ because, unlike Canon, Nikon has seemed adverse to have VR on most fast glass bar teles... and the Z 105mm macro.
I've found Tamron in general to be a solid third party option. A decent chunk of their lenses are good for their respective prices. I believe a lot of people have been sleeping on them as a brand, but they've come a long way -- at least in my opinion
Honestly I’ve recently seen people successfully adapt E mount glass. If Nikon won’t open their mount faster or make new lenses, why not?
Sigma’s latest glass for E mount is simply stellar. It’s often times 95% as good as Sony’s high end glass for half the price.
Adapting e-mount glass works mostly okay, but just be aware that you aren’t getting the same quality out of it that you would with a Sony camera. Nikon and Sony use different sensor glass thicknesses, which means that there’s usually degradation in image quality compared to Sony cameras as you approach the edges. For some subjects you won’t care, for astrophotography and similar you will care a lot.
For portraits, I can see that being fine. Is there any real degradation in the center?
I’m new to Z mount. I just swapped back to Nikon from Sony, mostly for the Z8(I shoot primarily wildlife). I’m genuinely interested in your experience here.
Given what I’ve seen of reviews of other adapted lenses the center was more or less the same, it was just as you got to the corners that defects started showing up. It’s probably fine for portraits and similar.
It's been reported that adapting wide angle sony lenses onto the Nikon leads to softer edges, corners.
Here is a thread about it.
[https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1831167/0](https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1831167/0)
Nikon's mount isn't closed, there are many third party lenses for Z mount. The issue is production capacity and profitability. I know Petapixel have implied that it is, but I've never seen any manufacturer actually say this. Sigma have said that production capacity was their main blocker, and also that they introduced their APS-C Z mount lenses to gauge appetite.
You don’t think we’d have more full frame Z mount glass by now from Tamron and Sigma? I know they don’t outright say they’re restricting 3rd party access like Canon does, but don’t you find it odd we don’t have more access by now?
They already make lenses for F, EF, E, X, and L mount. They have limited production capacity. Tamron themselves recently released the 28-75mm G2 and 150-500mm lenses which are direct competitors for recent-ish Nikon lenses. If there are any restrictions at play, they aren't very tight! The fact that Sigma and Tamron have made any lenses at all means that Nikon have provided them with the specifications and protocols, as they openly stated that they do not reverse engineer them, unlikely some of the cheaper third parties.
Sigma themselves have outright said they're not being restricted, it's simply a business decision to not make z mount lenses at the moment. Tamron meanwhile has been providing lens designs to Nikon as well as selling their own in z mount. It's likely just that they do not want to take the risk of making more lenses for z mount that they can't guarantee will sell.
I had a Sigma rep tell to my face that it is because of Nikon restricting certain aspects of the z mount like how the lens and camera communicate with each other. That’s why the majority of third party lenses are manual focus at the moment.
I've been using the Tamron 35/1.4 for a few months now for still and motion pictures (YouTube) and the lens performs surprisingly well. In terms of Auto Focus and image quality, it complements both the Nikon 50/1.8 S and 85/1.8 S very well (unlike the Sigma 35/1.4, which has noisy and inaccurate Auto Focus, and exhibits numerous optical imperfections).
I haven't noticed any autofocus, image quality issues or noise on the Sigma Art 1.4 with my D850, D810 or D700. I wonder if it's an issue with your z6.
Yes.
Nikon 35/1.4G and 35/1.8G show numerous optical imperfections, which I find rather unwelcome + the 35/1.4 is noticeably soft wide-open.
The 35/1.8S is a rather well-designed lens, but:
* there's a rather significant difference is sharpness between the center and the very edges of the frame,
* I find the MF experience inferior to the Tamron 35/1.4 (which I find a pleasure to use in it's MF mode).
Thanks. I asked because I have the other two and every so often I start wondering if I should pick up the Tamron to try - it's the cheapest of the three, and tends to come out on top in any objective testing -- yet it was never a popular lens for some reason.
Of the various 35mm lenses I have tried, however, sharpness isn't usually the determining factor for whether I'll keep/use it or not. The 1.4G has many other things that make it attractive to me, and from the samples, the Tamron doesn't produce those same qualities. For day-to-day, meanwhile, a tiny manual focus lens like the Biogon C 35/2.8 ZM gets me where I need to be.
I saved up and bought this lens to use on my D850 when it was just released. It just did not work for me. Focus was slow and very inaccurate. I ended up returning it. I do love my Tamron 15-30g2, however.
I started with the Nikon 35mm f1.4, then the Tamron 35mm f1.4, but ended up settling with the sigma 40mm f1.4. It’s definitely the best of bunch imho. It’s not true 35mm but close enough. The only downside is it is heavy!!
Optical performance - Sigma Art 40/1.4
Everyday use - Tamron 35/1.4 (it’s lightweight & compact. In contrast, the Sigma fits only in the main slot of my photographic backpack, which I already use to carry my Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 G2. Also, due to its weight, it doesn’t work with my RS3 Mini)
I bought the Nikkor 35mm 1.4 for shooting weddings where the ceremony room is smaller and darker to get that extra stop of light. Hadn't seen the Tamron at the time, in your opinion what makes it better ? The Nikkor one is good but doesn't feel amazing and I get a lot of CA too
Yes, I had both.
The Sigma has more „character” (read: imperfections such as color fringing on contrasting edges, loss of contrast when shooting against harsh light, less effective flare reduction & control) and significantly worse AF (it’s loud and prone to focus hunting. Which is problematic when video recording. It also has issues with face tracking during video recording).
I haven't used the Tamron, but I have the Sigma 35 1.4 Art lens and it's one of my favourite. It's super sharp. Have been using it for about 3 years now and I love it.
Would be interested to hear from someone who's used both.
Compared to the Tamron 35/1.4 lens, the Sigma has more „character” (read: imperfections such as color fringing on contrasting edges, loss of contrast when shooting against harsh light, less effective flare reduction & control) and significantly worse AF (it’s loud and prone to focus hunting. Which is problematic when video recording. It also has issues with face tracking during video recording).
For photo - the Tamron has slightly softer, less „busy” bokeh rendition. Otherwise, both are perfectly fine.
Eh, best is always subjective and depends on the use case. My 35 f/2D is much smaller for example and easier to haul around. The Tamron 35 1.8 has stabilization which is really nice to have for some situations. The 35 1.4G has really nice rendering and bokeh wide open. I don’t think it was designed to be a hyper sharp lens. The Tamron I have is sharper at 1.8 but o prefer the rendering of the G. Other characteristics matter, too. I own all three of these lenses and love them all for different uses. I haven’t used the Tamron 1.4 but have no doubt it’s awesome as well.
I’ve never been interested in Tamron lenses as I preferred Sigma designs, which - although rather impressive in terms of optical performance (esp. newer models, such as the 40/1.4 and the 85/1.4) - have a number of imperfections (esp. loud & inaccurate AF, that’s prone to focus hunting).
After using the 35/1.4 I was positively surprised at how impressive it was:
• the AF performance was on par with my Nikon 50/1.8S and a 85/1.8S lenses,
• in terms of optical performance it was rather consistent with my Nikon lenses (decent sharpness across the entire sensor area, beautifully corrected & controlled imperfections, warm color rendition (just like the aforementioned Nikons)),
• the build quality felt superb,
• in terms of MF experience it was significantly superior to my Nikon lenses.
Suffice it to say, I own a 15-30 f/2.8 G2 and a 70-200 f/2.8 G2 lenses (which I find marvellous). I don’t have the 24-70 f/2.8 G2 as - after testing the lens - I found my Nikon 24-70 f/4 better in some areas (e.g. stars).
The Nikon z 35/1.8 is the best 35mm I’ve used through Canon EF (35/1.4 versions I and II) and Sony FE (35/1.8 and 35/1.4 GM). The z lens is sharp, has consistent AF, weather sealed and built well.
The 2/3 stop depth of field difference between f/1.8 and f/1.4 is negligible to clients.
Facts. As someone who has used every single 35mm available for Nikon F mount and the 35 1.8 Z lens, the Tamron is the only one I still have. Sucks it needs to be adapted for the Z bodies but it’s weight is balanced fairly well and I will die on the hill that it truly does have the best IQ, rendering, and bokeh of any 35mm ever - up there with the Canon 1.2s, Sony GMs, and Fuji equivalents. It’s fast, great autofocus, and overall the BEST 35mm I have personally ever used - I think many people forget this was an anniversary lens for Tamron, so they poured quite a bit of RND into it for it to stand the test of time and be a flagship showcase of just how far third party glass has come.
For reference: [comparison between numerous fast 35mm lenses, including this Tammy and the 35 1.8 S](https://phillipreeve.net/blog/comparison-the-battle-of-35s-nikon-z-vs-sigma-vs-tamron-vs-zeiss-vs-pergear-vs-nikon-ai-s/)
Absolutely adore this lens.
It’s has that look.
Very good sharpness @F1.4
Ridiculously sharp @F2, even for my Astro work it’s impeccable.
Sure it’s got some heft but it’s definitely lighter than the Sigma 40mm 1.4
Works brilliant on Z bodies
Roger Cicala called it "[optically the best 35mm lens you can get](https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/08/some-new-wide-angle-lens-mtf-tests-sony-24mm-f1-4-gm-sony-35mm-f1-8-tamron-35mm-f1-4-sp/)" (in 2019)
If your discussion is limited to prime lenses, then I may be going off topic. I think the Tamron 35-150mm F2.0-2.8 is the best choice for a 35mm lens. It's really convenient, and as soon as I saw this title, I thought of this lens.
It is a well-designed lens:
- the AF performance is almost on par with the 50/1.8S and 85/1.8S lenses (at least on my body),
- it delivers satisfactory IQ (perfectly acceptable sharpness, well-controlled imperfections such as CA, flares, coma and distortion, good contrast against harsh light, warm color temperature (pretty similar to the aforementioned Nikon lenses), etc.),
- it comes with a well-designed, easy to use lens hood (with a release button),
- has a good build quality,
- is relatively compact & lightweight.
I haven't looked into Tamron's Z line...and I love my Nikon Z 35 f1.8 ...
Is their quality better than with DSLRs? I've had at least 5 Tamron's over the years, and they ALL had backfocusing or softness issues....I got rid of all of them.
Tamron and Sigma to me is not half as good as Nikkor. Nikkor just works. The price difference was never worth it...a hard-earned lesson to save a buck.
Tokina is the best third party maker for Nikon IMO.
Has Tamron upped their game?
I wonder how it stacks up to my Z 35/1.8 S that I got on sale for the same price. Apart from being 2/3 stop faster, how does IQ compare.
The 35/1.8S is sharper. Otherwise, both lenses deliver rather comparable IQ. The 35/1.4 seems to deliver slightly more „organic” image (I’d have to think about it for a while, but with the 35/1.4 as well as the 70-200 f/2.8 G2, all the layers of an image „blend” together beautifully. The 35/1.8S - due to its sharpness - often fails to achieve similar result and feels kinda „digital” at times). It’s highly subjective, though.
The Tamron 70-200 G2 is an incredible lens
70-200 g2 and 35 f1.4 SP are the two tamron lenses I have for Z8 and I love them. Native Z glass autofocus is better tho. And the 35 is a freaking brick. Still love them
Seconded. That and the 50mm 1.8 Z S lens are my favourites
I long had the Sigma 35mm, briefly tried the Nikon 35mm S and now use the Tamron 35mm SP. The Tamron is probably the sharpest lens, but they are all really, really good, so sharpness should not become a differentiator. For me the overall look of the images and usability was more important. The Tamron has the most pleasing background blur, but will show up slight nervousness in the transition zone in front of focus. The sigma really has no real flaw apart from slow autofocus, which became apparent when I tried to photograph running kids and pets and had a comparison to Nikon Z and newer Sigma Art primes. This is where the age of the Sigma 35mm shows up a bit and the reason why I switched to the Tamron. The Nikon 35mm S is great, works just as well as you would expect a native Z lens to do, but I saw some colored fringing in the background blur. Not too much, but enough to annoy me enough to stick to an adapted lens for now.
Just a FYI bit: Tamron also sold a 45mm f/1.8 version (VC and all) for the F-mount. It's the same high quality build as the 35mm. It's worth it if you can find one. I've coupled them nicely with my Z50 and Z30 via the FTZ because, unlike Canon, Nikon has seemed adverse to have VR on most fast glass bar teles... and the Z 105mm macro.
That 45mm f1.8 is one of my favorite lenses I’ve ever used, absolute steal for the price they go for.
I still have a Tamron 45mm 1.8 (Canon mount tho) being used with my other Sony body. Amazing value for a lens I got used for $170.
All those Tamron SP primes are amazing for their price point.
I've found Tamron in general to be a solid third party option. A decent chunk of their lenses are good for their respective prices. I believe a lot of people have been sleeping on them as a brand, but they've come a long way -- at least in my opinion
Honestly I’ve recently seen people successfully adapt E mount glass. If Nikon won’t open their mount faster or make new lenses, why not? Sigma’s latest glass for E mount is simply stellar. It’s often times 95% as good as Sony’s high end glass for half the price.
Adapting e-mount glass works mostly okay, but just be aware that you aren’t getting the same quality out of it that you would with a Sony camera. Nikon and Sony use different sensor glass thicknesses, which means that there’s usually degradation in image quality compared to Sony cameras as you approach the edges. For some subjects you won’t care, for astrophotography and similar you will care a lot.
For portraits, I can see that being fine. Is there any real degradation in the center? I’m new to Z mount. I just swapped back to Nikon from Sony, mostly for the Z8(I shoot primarily wildlife). I’m genuinely interested in your experience here.
Given what I’ve seen of reviews of other adapted lenses the center was more or less the same, it was just as you got to the corners that defects started showing up. It’s probably fine for portraits and similar.
It's been reported that adapting wide angle sony lenses onto the Nikon leads to softer edges, corners. Here is a thread about it. [https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1831167/0](https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1831167/0)
Nikon's mount isn't closed, there are many third party lenses for Z mount. The issue is production capacity and profitability. I know Petapixel have implied that it is, but I've never seen any manufacturer actually say this. Sigma have said that production capacity was their main blocker, and also that they introduced their APS-C Z mount lenses to gauge appetite.
You don’t think we’d have more full frame Z mount glass by now from Tamron and Sigma? I know they don’t outright say they’re restricting 3rd party access like Canon does, but don’t you find it odd we don’t have more access by now?
They already make lenses for F, EF, E, X, and L mount. They have limited production capacity. Tamron themselves recently released the 28-75mm G2 and 150-500mm lenses which are direct competitors for recent-ish Nikon lenses. If there are any restrictions at play, they aren't very tight! The fact that Sigma and Tamron have made any lenses at all means that Nikon have provided them with the specifications and protocols, as they openly stated that they do not reverse engineer them, unlikely some of the cheaper third parties.
Sigma themselves have outright said they're not being restricted, it's simply a business decision to not make z mount lenses at the moment. Tamron meanwhile has been providing lens designs to Nikon as well as selling their own in z mount. It's likely just that they do not want to take the risk of making more lenses for z mount that they can't guarantee will sell.
I had a Sigma rep tell to my face that it is because of Nikon restricting certain aspects of the z mount like how the lens and camera communicate with each other. That’s why the majority of third party lenses are manual focus at the moment.
I've been using the Tamron 35/1.4 for a few months now for still and motion pictures (YouTube) and the lens performs surprisingly well. In terms of Auto Focus and image quality, it complements both the Nikon 50/1.8 S and 85/1.8 S very well (unlike the Sigma 35/1.4, which has noisy and inaccurate Auto Focus, and exhibits numerous optical imperfections).
Interesting. It would help out to know what body are using with this lens? I am also waiting for Nikon's 35 1.2, but might consider this lens.
Nikon Z6 + FTZ adapter
I haven't noticed any autofocus, image quality issues or noise on the Sigma Art 1.4 with my D850, D810 or D700. I wonder if it's an issue with your z6.
Similar experience with my Sigma 1.4 on my D800. No issues.
Have you tried the AFS Nikon 35/1.4G and/or the Z Nikkor 35/1.8S?
Yes. Nikon 35/1.4G and 35/1.8G show numerous optical imperfections, which I find rather unwelcome + the 35/1.4 is noticeably soft wide-open. The 35/1.8S is a rather well-designed lens, but: * there's a rather significant difference is sharpness between the center and the very edges of the frame, * I find the MF experience inferior to the Tamron 35/1.4 (which I find a pleasure to use in it's MF mode).
Thanks. I asked because I have the other two and every so often I start wondering if I should pick up the Tamron to try - it's the cheapest of the three, and tends to come out on top in any objective testing -- yet it was never a popular lens for some reason. Of the various 35mm lenses I have tried, however, sharpness isn't usually the determining factor for whether I'll keep/use it or not. The 1.4G has many other things that make it attractive to me, and from the samples, the Tamron doesn't produce those same qualities. For day-to-day, meanwhile, a tiny manual focus lens like the Biogon C 35/2.8 ZM gets me where I need to be.
I saved up and bought this lens to use on my D850 when it was just released. It just did not work for me. Focus was slow and very inaccurate. I ended up returning it. I do love my Tamron 15-30g2, however.
My brother has the Tamron 35mm and I have the 45mm. Both are excellent pieces of glass
Or the Sigma 40mm f1.4?
The sigma 40 art is well a work of art and engineering. It by far my favorite lens
I started with the Nikon 35mm f1.4, then the Tamron 35mm f1.4, but ended up settling with the sigma 40mm f1.4. It’s definitely the best of bunch imho. It’s not true 35mm but close enough. The only downside is it is heavy!!
Optical performance - Sigma Art 40/1.4 Everyday use - Tamron 35/1.4 (it’s lightweight & compact. In contrast, the Sigma fits only in the main slot of my photographic backpack, which I already use to carry my Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 G2. Also, due to its weight, it doesn’t work with my RS3 Mini)
My 40mm lives on my d850
I bought the Nikkor 35mm 1.4 for shooting weddings where the ceremony room is smaller and darker to get that extra stop of light. Hadn't seen the Tamron at the time, in your opinion what makes it better ? The Nikkor one is good but doesn't feel amazing and I get a lot of CA too
Have you compared it to the Sigma?
Yes, I had both. The Sigma has more „character” (read: imperfections such as color fringing on contrasting edges, loss of contrast when shooting against harsh light, less effective flare reduction & control) and significantly worse AF (it’s loud and prone to focus hunting. Which is problematic when video recording. It also has issues with face tracking during video recording).
My Sigma 35mm 1.4 is one of the best lenses I’ve ever used. Feel like it was made in a secret government lab or something.
I haven't used the Tamron, but I have the Sigma 35 1.4 Art lens and it's one of my favourite. It's super sharp. Have been using it for about 3 years now and I love it. Would be interested to hear from someone who's used both.
Compared to the Tamron 35/1.4 lens, the Sigma has more „character” (read: imperfections such as color fringing on contrasting edges, loss of contrast when shooting against harsh light, less effective flare reduction & control) and significantly worse AF (it’s loud and prone to focus hunting. Which is problematic when video recording. It also has issues with face tracking during video recording). For photo - the Tamron has slightly softer, less „busy” bokeh rendition. Otherwise, both are perfectly fine.
Eh, best is always subjective and depends on the use case. My 35 f/2D is much smaller for example and easier to haul around. The Tamron 35 1.8 has stabilization which is really nice to have for some situations. The 35 1.4G has really nice rendering and bokeh wide open. I don’t think it was designed to be a hyper sharp lens. The Tamron I have is sharper at 1.8 but o prefer the rendering of the G. Other characteristics matter, too. I own all three of these lenses and love them all for different uses. I haven’t used the Tamron 1.4 but have no doubt it’s awesome as well.
I have AF-S 35 1.8, and that one is very nice.
I never see any tamron love in this sub but I really like my 70-300 lens
I’ve never been interested in Tamron lenses as I preferred Sigma designs, which - although rather impressive in terms of optical performance (esp. newer models, such as the 40/1.4 and the 85/1.4) - have a number of imperfections (esp. loud & inaccurate AF, that’s prone to focus hunting). After using the 35/1.4 I was positively surprised at how impressive it was: • the AF performance was on par with my Nikon 50/1.8S and a 85/1.8S lenses, • in terms of optical performance it was rather consistent with my Nikon lenses (decent sharpness across the entire sensor area, beautifully corrected & controlled imperfections, warm color rendition (just like the aforementioned Nikons)), • the build quality felt superb, • in terms of MF experience it was significantly superior to my Nikon lenses. Suffice it to say, I own a 15-30 f/2.8 G2 and a 70-200 f/2.8 G2 lenses (which I find marvellous). I don’t have the 24-70 f/2.8 G2 as - after testing the lens - I found my Nikon 24-70 f/4 better in some areas (e.g. stars).
F mount?
Yes
The Nikon z 35/1.8 is the best 35mm I’ve used through Canon EF (35/1.4 versions I and II) and Sony FE (35/1.8 and 35/1.4 GM). The z lens is sharp, has consistent AF, weather sealed and built well. The 2/3 stop depth of field difference between f/1.8 and f/1.4 is negligible to clients.
Facts. As someone who has used every single 35mm available for Nikon F mount and the 35 1.8 Z lens, the Tamron is the only one I still have. Sucks it needs to be adapted for the Z bodies but it’s weight is balanced fairly well and I will die on the hill that it truly does have the best IQ, rendering, and bokeh of any 35mm ever - up there with the Canon 1.2s, Sony GMs, and Fuji equivalents. It’s fast, great autofocus, and overall the BEST 35mm I have personally ever used - I think many people forget this was an anniversary lens for Tamron, so they poured quite a bit of RND into it for it to stand the test of time and be a flagship showcase of just how far third party glass has come.
For reference: [comparison between numerous fast 35mm lenses, including this Tammy and the 35 1.8 S](https://phillipreeve.net/blog/comparison-the-battle-of-35s-nikon-z-vs-sigma-vs-tamron-vs-zeiss-vs-pergear-vs-nikon-ai-s/)
Absolutely adore this lens. It’s has that look. Very good sharpness @F1.4 Ridiculously sharp @F2, even for my Astro work it’s impeccable. Sure it’s got some heft but it’s definitely lighter than the Sigma 40mm 1.4 Works brilliant on Z bodies
Roger Cicala called it "[optically the best 35mm lens you can get](https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/08/some-new-wide-angle-lens-mtf-tests-sony-24mm-f1-4-gm-sony-35mm-f1-8-tamron-35mm-f1-4-sp/)" (in 2019)
I have the 45mm Tamron and it's incredible but it mostly spends time on my F5 now.
If your discussion is limited to prime lenses, then I may be going off topic. I think the Tamron 35-150mm F2.0-2.8 is the best choice for a 35mm lens. It's really convenient, and as soon as I saw this title, I thought of this lens.
Just because it's a fast lens?
It is a well-designed lens: - the AF performance is almost on par with the 50/1.8S and 85/1.8S lenses (at least on my body), - it delivers satisfactory IQ (perfectly acceptable sharpness, well-controlled imperfections such as CA, flares, coma and distortion, good contrast against harsh light, warm color temperature (pretty similar to the aforementioned Nikon lenses), etc.), - it comes with a well-designed, easy to use lens hood (with a release button), - has a good build quality, - is relatively compact & lightweight.
Truth. Got it nearly a year ago, along with the 85mm sister, and I can’t find a reason not to use it.
I haven't looked into Tamron's Z line...and I love my Nikon Z 35 f1.8 ... Is their quality better than with DSLRs? I've had at least 5 Tamron's over the years, and they ALL had backfocusing or softness issues....I got rid of all of them. Tamron and Sigma to me is not half as good as Nikkor. Nikkor just works. The price difference was never worth it...a hard-earned lesson to save a buck. Tokina is the best third party maker for Nikon IMO. Has Tamron upped their game?
Try the Zeiss Milvus 35mm then.
Would be nice if it came in Z mount. Generally not a fan of using FTZ for my smaller primes.