So anyway........:

Canon > Tamrom and I'd at least LOOK at the Canon equivalent of this lens because you'll likely find there's more to the price difference than just the name.

The big issue I have with a lot of 3rd party lenses (Sigma, Tamron, Tonkina, etc) are the creature comforts.
USM motors, a lack of full time manual focus, extending /rotating lens barrels, general feel, build quality, etc.
Optically they usually are decent, but I'm not always sold by the areas that they skimp on.

I have it and can't fault it. I spoke with a lot of pro food photographers and they all rated it higher than the canon 100mm and 60mm. Its a great price also. Fantastic lens....DO IT!

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

While I don't personally own this lens, I have borrowed it off of a friend and it is indeed a fine lens. Great bang for your buck and my friends who do own it continue to take fantastic macros with it.

As for the discussion about third party lenses, I have no issues with them myself. I have owned several lenses from Sigma (30mm f1.4) and Tamron (17-50, 28-75) and I have loved them all. For comparison sake, I did also own Canon's equivalent 24-70 f2.8 L series lens. While it was definitely sharper than Tamron's 28-75, I had to crop images to 100% to really notice. For all intents and purposes the images from both cameras were great and useable. I sold the Canon 24-70 f2.8 L because it was way too heavy for me to lug around. Yes, I'm a weakling. But in photography, there really is no point in buying or keeping a lens if it's just going to sit in your camera bag, which is what ended up happening to my more expensive Canon 24-70L. I used the sale of that lens to buy 3 new lenses :lol:

Also, Sigma and Tamron do develop lenses with their version of Ultra Sonic focusing motors. Definitely great value those lenses.

I like the lens I ended up buying at Mcbain cameras in Edmonton I like there store because Thell take your used gear on trade in for a good price and also sell used equipment. The next thing I need is a new camera as I'm useing a older Nikon 5000 think it's onley 14.5 mp the new 5200 are somewere around 25+ mp

I own the 90mm tamron for Nikon, love it.

Next question... Why in the world do you need 25+ mp?

NEED. MOAR. PIXELS!! Not really.. but it's fun to brag about it. :biggrin:

.. seriously though, who needs 25+ megapixels ?!?! :noidea:

Isn't there some new cell phone out with like 40mp?

Never understood why people seem to think massive MP's are so important... Then I remember they probably don't have a clue :lol: I don't think ill ever need a photo that large O_o

I have canons 60mm macro and love it. Couldn't afford anything better at the time. I'm not sure off brands could stand up to the abuse I put my stuff through....

I have a full frame Canon 5D Mark II as well as a crop sensor Canon 40D. I got the Full Frame out of curiosity to see the difference between the two. After using the full frame camera for 4 years I discovered that 9.5 times out of 10, I resized the 22mp image down to 10mp to save disk space (as well as transfer and processing times). Moral of the story, even though I have 22mp available to me, I have NEVER used all 22mp. I literally threw away half of the pixels each and every time I processed my photos. Even when I shot weddings and family portraits I would give customers a 10mp file which was more than enough pixels for any sort of printing they'd ever want to do. This is why I keep around and frequently use my much lighter, native 10mp Canon 40D.

When I process my photos for the web (flickr, canreef, facebook, emailing, etc), I throw away even more pixels and resize to something like a 3 or 4 mega pixel image :lol:

That 5D is a sweet body. Trade you for another 40D with a battery grip? Since you like them so much :)