macro lens

P

petebuster1

Suspended / Banned
Messages
233
Name
peter
Edit My Images
Yes
One thing i will do a lot of is macro so was thinking of the Tamron 90mm has anyone got one that can recommend it or any other suggestions
 
I've got the Nikon version of the Tokina 100mm f2.8 and I've been very happy with its performance and Ken loves it http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/100mm-f28.htm

I know nothing of Canons so don't know whether it's compatible with your camera but I can thoroughly recommend it. Nearly all the shots of the cameras on my blog have been taken with the Tokina.
 
Hi
If you're sticking it on your 60D then I don't think you can go wrong with either the Sigma 105mm, the Tamron 90mm or the Canon 100mm, to be honest.

The bit of extra cash for the Canon will get you a smoother auto-focus but they are all very good performers and extremely sharp.
 
On the crop the tamron 90mm is very good has an overall better image quality than the sigma IMO although I tend to use mine as a portrait lens most of the time as its as sharp as they get its a very good quality lens for the price the only downside is it has a louder than normal AF motor which if your photoing things that may fly off may be a pain.
 
Just looked at the reviews in camera shopper ,they put the sigma as the best
 
to be honest all of the 90/100mm macro lenses avaliable now are excellent
I doubt in practice with real subjects you will be able to see much difference in IQ:)
Ive got the sigma 105 and 150 and the Canon 100L and all are excellent
I mainly use the Canon now as the IS is very handy :)
the only slight disadvantage of the Sigma 105 is the the lens extends on focussing but its not really a problem
Pete
 
Personally i'd go for the Canon 100mm macro, out of the lens your looking at, I've had the canon and the sigma in the past, the Canon has internal focusing where'as with the Tamron and sigma the lens barrel extends towards the subject as you increase magnification (focus closer), the canon has a much better working distance (distance from the end of the lens to subject) and produced stronger colours and better contrast. Bargin £270 - 300 used. To get the best from any macro lens at 1:1 your going to need a flash also.
 
yes thank you, i would rather have the the better working distance. Thats actually quite important (just a personnal pref) was just reading something on the canon about that and the sigmas pretty expensive for whats seems little or no difference in picture quality between them. what flash would you recommend? (cheaper options)
 
Last edited:
If you want/need/like longer working distances, maybe you would be better looking at the longer Macro lenses?

However, on the subject of the Tamron 90mm. I have one, currently on long term loan to a friend and to be sold (hopefully) to a friend in Crete next June. Mine's an older, screw driven version for Nikon but focusses accurately and reasonably quickly. Optically, it's great, both as a macro and a short telephoto/portrait lens. I had wanted one for many years and once I got back into photography in the mid to late '90s, I started looking for one locally second hand. Only took about 3 years for one to turn up but it was worth the wait!
 
Nod said:
If you want/need/like longer working distances, maybe you would be better looking at the longer Macro lenses?

However, on the subject of the Tamron 90mm. I have one, currently on long term loan to a friend and to be sold (hopefully) to a friend in Crete next June. Mine's an older, screw driven version for Nikon but focusses accurately and reasonably quickly. Optically, it's great, both as a macro and a short telephoto/portrait lens. I had wanted one for many years and once I got back into photography in the mid to late '90s, I started looking for one locally second hand. Only took about 3 years for one to turn up but it was worth the wait!
Click to expand...

you waited 3 years to find one, your a very patient man 3 days is as long wait for me :LOL:
 
I can be! However, after coming out of hospital, I only waited a couple of days before buying the lens that's replaced the Tamron in my bag - a Nikkor 105mm VR Macro. Not a need as such, just wanted a slight upgrade and had a reasonably valuable lens to trade in against it. I thought I was going to be more house bound than I have been and Macro seemed like a good way to spend time indoors on photography!

The main reason that I waited was that I didn't want to fork out the new price on a slightly specialised lens - it's a great length for Macro on a crop body (90mm) but its other use was as a portrait lens on my film bodies - on a crop body, it's a little too long for my house (can't really get far enough away). Having gone FF a couple of years ago, I felt I could justify the extra for the Nikkor which after trading in the rarely used 150-500 OS Sigma (fine optically but too heavy for me to carry around just in case I wanted it) only cost me a couple of hundred quid in cold folding. Since I've found myself increasingly mobile, I've hardly used the new macro lens beyond playing and testing. Maybe when the weather starts closing in a bit more, I'll get out there, up close and personal!
 
The tamron macros may well be a fine lens but i am a bit anti tamron based on the couple I have, they just seem cheaply made and don't feel the quality of OE or sigmas and the IQ is average on the ones I have and the OE kit lens seems better in comparison and a lot cheaper to me
 
Last edited:
I would tend to agree in terms of their entry level zooms but the 90mm macro is a different animal, nearly always coming out close to the top of group tests of ~100mm macro lenses. Build quality of mine is well up there with other primes I have.
 
All in all they seem the same in terms of picture quality so ill get the cheapest when I'm ready my new sigma 18-250 macro will do for the time being but will want a dedicated macro later on
 
TBH, the IQ difference between my old Tamron 90mm and the new Nikkor 105mm are very slight, although they are there. There was no real need for the upgrade, just GAS and the lure of VR on a short telephoto, along with the speed (although both are f/2.8, the AF-S of the Nikkor is marginally faster than the screw driver on the Tamron).

Cheapest isn't always the best option and can end up costing you more money (wanting the more expensive option and having problems selling the cheap option on can leave you spending more than if you went for the better one first time - especially true with tripods - I reckon almost all of us who bought cheapies now have them in the cupboard, relegated to holding up speedlights and other more mundane duties!), although the Tamron is relatively cheap, it does fall into the good category too.
 
petebuster1 said:
All in all they seem the same in terms of picture quality so ill get the cheapest when I'm ready my new sigma 18-250 macro will do for the time being but will want a dedicated macro later on
Click to expand...

If your hoping to get any type of macro shot with that lens you will be disappointed, as it only has a magnification of 1:3.4 , where as a true macro will give you 1:1.
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
If your hoping to get any type of macro shot with that lens you will be disappointed, as it only has a magnification of 1:3.4 , where as a true macro will give you 1:1.
Click to expand...

i thought all these gave 1.1 ? if thats the case i'd rather pay the extra for a 1.1
 
For some reason, manufacturers seem to be able to bypass the trades descriptions act and call any lens that focusses at a short distance a macro lens. Buyers are often duped by this and end up with an often poorish telephoto zoom that can focus quite close when they really want a proper 1:1 macro lens - usually significantly more expensive. From time to time, the magazines do group tests of macro lenses, with the independents (Sigma and Tamron) usually doing well against their more expensive rivals from Canon and Nikon. They do crop up on 2nd hand shelves from time to time but as always, it's usually best to test the particular lens you will be buying to make sure it's a good copy. Most reputable dealers will offer some sort of warranty - phone and check that this covers softness and/or misaligned elements and ask if they have tested for the faults before listing. It would in theory be possible for them to say the lens was in perfect working order when it was sent and must have been damaged either in transit or by you after receipt. Less important when buying from reputable dealers but vital if buying from e-bay or similar.

Happy shopping,

Nod.
 
having seen some test pics on various sites though i think the tamron would be sufficient for my needs,it would be more a summer thing for me if we get one of course.
 
Last edited:
To a certain extent the focal length you want depends on the sensor size of your camera . For full frame I'd recommend a focal length of 150 / 180mm. I had a the Tamron 180mm and it was a very nice lens.

The advantage of a longer focal length is extra working distance plus a narrower angle of view which helps with avoiding distracting backgrounds.
 
canon 100 macro is internal focus which can be eaiser to use with close objects. with the tamron 90mm the lens extends which can be a pain..

both are very good lens image quailty is great on both.
 
Dare I mention the Canon MP-E 65? Not cheap but does (IIRC) offer larger than 1:1 reproduction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top