Anyone useing a tamron 90mm macro lens?
 

I'm looking at a new macro lens and am wondering if anyone has used a tamron 90mm f2.8?

I have the 100mm f2.8 macro lens on my Nikon. I got it on Kijiji for an amazing price and it didn't even look like it ever got removed from the box. It is a solid build with no play in the barrels, has good bokeh and fairly fast AF but I usually end up using manual focus. The VR on the Nikon equivalent would have been nice but I'm usually outside or use a tripod (takes excellent portraits) and at 1/4 of the price of the Nilkon I can live without VR. The only gripe I have is that the AF motor is a little noisier than my Nikon lenses. I don't know specifically much about the 90mm macro but I would assume the same quality and sharp photos, Tokina is IMHO the best 3rd party lens mfg.

I dont own one but they are a very popular lense.....good value I think and they do take amazing macros.

Ya I'm going to do some reading tonight on them but at $400 new there not badly priced.

I got one recently and REALLY like it! Nice colour and the Bokeh is so nice lots of guys use them for portraits! At $400 you really can't go wrong with this lens!

+1
I have it and love it , greats lens for the price.
Here are a couple of pics with it
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/09/04/ypavuty6.jpghttp://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/09/04/yge8uqev.jpg

I just bought this on Wednesday. It's pretty nifty!

I'll throw in the dissenting opinion for what it's worth! :)

I'm a Canon fanboy and I love their glass. Is this for a Canon camera? Nikon, Sony, etc?

If it's a Canon I'd look at the Canon 100mm prime macro. It used to be in their L-Series but they dropped it down to their regular line to promote their new (at the time) zoom macro. The glass is outstanding and the lens is very high quality. I've taken some outstanding shots with it.

If it's not for a Canon then don't worry about it because it will suck anyway. (baaazinnnnggggaaaaaaaaaaa!)

:bananahuge:

That was what I wanted but I got a great price on the tamron so I sucked it up.

Come on man, you know just as well as I do by saying something like that, your not convincing anyone. It makes you look like your trying to justify your purchase of the 100mm, which is a fine lens, but has nothing to do with the post. And how is this helping him?

I have used the 90mm, its slow to focus, and its noisy when focusing, but its sharp and its a huge savings over a canon or a nikon equivalent. I picked one up as a secondary lens, lightly used for $250. I use it while I'm climbing/mountaineering, just in case I take a fall or dump it in the snow, its not crazy to replace.

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 :)

I see your 40d and raise you a 50d...

The body is very similar to the 40/50/60D. The only real difference is the larger sensor, lack of pop-up flash and the slightly larger/heavier body. I suppose if you have larger hands then the larger body may feel more comfortable in your hand. Comfort of a camera is very subjective though. For me, bigger isn't better. A full frame camera body also means that the lenses that go with it will tend to be much bigger and heavier as well. Again, I've shot weddings while lugged these beasts around and definitely appreciate the smaller/lighter body/lens setups. Instead of the beastly 70-200 F2.8L, I sold it and got the 70-200 F4L IS at half the weight, which works much much better for me and gets more use. Similar to the 24-70 F2.8 that I used to own. Way too heavy so I sold it and go the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 and Canon 24-105 F4L. Both lighter and cheaper.

Having said all that! I am on the verge of selling my 5D Mark II and side-grading to the 6D. I would not consider this an upgrade or a downgrade. It's a side-grade :lol: The new 6D is lighter than my 40D !! That alone is worth it.