For my A7RM3 I use mainly for travel, street & landscape photography , I am on the fence for a 35mm with very good IQ and, preferably, an 1.8 max aperture.
When reading the article of Harvey Stearn on the Sony A7RM4 and his lens selection regarding the best optical quality, I have been quite attracted by the Tamron 35mm f2.8 and its superior homogenous sharpness, flare resistance, low level of fringing, weatherproofness, price etc.., but with a not so good AF speed performance. All essentially landscape-oriented qualities . Had the AF performance be ok, I would immediatley have gone for it. But its AF lazyness is a serious caveat for me.
The other option is the Sony FE 35mm f1.8. It is pricier, but benefits from a top notch AF speed and is also highly rated by reviewers. However, the IQ seems laging behind the Tamron in term of sharpness homogeneity across the frame, as well as of fringing.
Unfortunately, probably for avaibility reason, Harvey did not compare the Tamron to the Sony. Also, from other reviews, it seems that the Sony does not provide the absolute best IQ he is looking for.
To me, despite beeing pricer, larger and with no real weatherproofness nor macro capacity, the Sony has three distinct advantages: stabilisation, AF speed and 1.8 max aperture, all quite important for the way I shot street photography
My point here is to try to figure if the Sony IQ is good enough for my purposes.
I guess I could live with it if:
– The central sharpness is comparable to that of the Tamron
– the border/corner sharpness improves sufficiently by stopping down to typical landscape 5.6-11 apertures.
– The lateral & axial CA issue is not that strong it becomes a deal breaker.
I would much appreciate if someone ,who has got the opportunity to compare both lenses, could give me some response, even subjective, on these 3 questions.