which one is better?

<h1>Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM</h1>

<h1>Tamron 90mm f/2.8 SP Di MACRO 1:1 VC USD</h1>

<p>for canon 650D</p>

<p>Better for what, Hamid?</p>

I'm with Keith. Better for what? Better in what way? On what camera? Both are excellent macro lenses. I love my Canon EF 100/2.8 Macro USM, for the record, but I'd seriously consider the Tamron (along with several other lenses, including Canon's other macro offerings, current and past) if I didn't already own a macro lens. Really need to know what your needs are.

<p>Hamid, please post a question in one forum only.<br>

With regard to your question: In general you can't go wrong with any macro lens. All the available ones perform very well. The Tamron has VR (vibration reduction). This isn't very helpfull in macro but is a great help when using the lens as a regular 100 mm (portraits and the like). </p>

<p> i dont want this lens for portrait photography i want capture form bug and housefly or like this and my camera is 650D<br>

tnx for your help</p>

<p>If you had both lenses, you would never be able to tell the difference between results from one or the other. I'd buy whichever one is cheaper. If the price is the same, get the Tamron, because it has VR - unless you are a Canon fan-boy, in which case the whole question is moot! ;-)</p>

Hamid... Either lens will work about equally well for that purpose. You will probably find a set of extension tubes for very helpful for

subjects that size. You may also find a flash very useful. Consider buying the lenses used if at all possible and buying these accessories

at the same time, if cost is an issue, because you'll find yourself wanting them in the future.

<p>tnx joshua but i have extension tubes i have problem because of i should getting too close to my subject and this my problem <br>

i have not concert about capturing the flower <br>

my main problem is i cant too much close to my subject<br>

they scare and run away<img src="/photo/17689762" alt="" /><br>

this is my first experience with extension tube and i satisfy but capturing bug is different and i think i need lens at least in the near future </p>

<p>Hamid.. Whether you use a macro 100 or a "regular" 100 with extension tubes, the front element will still be the same distance to the subject. The only way to stay farther away while keeping the same coverage is to go with a longer focal length, say 200 or 300mm.</p>

<p>tnx jim but i have 18-55 stm with extension tubes <br>

if i have 100 lens i never think about changing lens <br>

i know 180mm is wonderful lens but too much for me so i decide buy macro lens between this two option<br>

pleas tell me if u have another option in this range price </p>

Hamid, Sigma (Sigma 180 F3.5 APO MACRO IF EX HSM) and Tamron (Tamron 180 F3.5 MACRO DI IF LD SP) both have 180mm macro lens designs that sell used for around the price of a good used Canon 100/2.8 Macro USM on KEH (they're currently out of the non-L USM macro lenses anyway). The extra reach would be beneficial for these subjects. Sigma also made/makes a 150mm (Sigma 150 F2.8 SIGMA APO EX MACRO DG HSM). For these subjects, a 180 would be helpful.

<p>The "for what" is critical, and you said on the other forum</p>

<blockquote>

<p>i want capture bug housefly or like this<br /> i am beginner and my camera is 650d</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Either is fine, the Tamron is the one I have, and I would never bother to "upgrade" it to a Canon equivalent (see http://www.photozone.de/all-tests for fairly "objective" comparisons on different bodies).<br>

There are advantages to even longer (180mm) macros, but the price and mass go up too.</p>

<p>Image stabilization might be helpful, but hand holding macro lenses is fairly difficult even with stabilization.</p>

<p>Hamid,<br>

I have the 100 2.8 Macro, using it will mean you get in close, so you will need a flash. For the kind of images you want, you will need a bit more magnification than this lens offers. I would suggest this lens plus extension tubes. But search the internet for super macro photography. I think this may be the magnification you are after. Read the articles, and the suggested set ups. For an idea on how close you can get with this lens go to flickr.com and type in Canon 100mm 2.8 macro.</p>

<p>The Tamron 180mm macro lens is only about $100 more that the 90 & 100. Obviously it's an older design, without VC, and with an older (though still perfectly functional) AF design. It's output should be broadly similar in IQ, though, given budgetary limitations, and your subject's skittishness will likely give much much better results than a 100/2.8 or the 90/2.8</p>

<p>tnx every one if somone have tamron 90mm vc tell me his experience or share his pic <br>

i think i need sample pic <br>

i find sample pic pf 100mm canon but i cant find sample pic of tamron</p>

<p>For bugs, to avoid scaring them, I use a 25mm extension tube on either my 100-400, or 75-300. I can then shoot at 3-5 foot range and get them filling the frame.</p>

<p>The difference between 90mm and 100 for macro is small, but the 100 will be slightly easier. I shoot lots of bugs, and I don't own a macro lens longer than 100mm. The extra reach would be nice, but the extra weight and length is not. Macro exaggerates the impact of motion, and I find it hard enough to balance the camera, a 100mm lens, and a flash on a monopod. Keep in mind that most macro flash rigs hold the flash near the front of the lens, making the center of gravity far forward as it is. Other people, however, really prefer the longer lens.</p>

<p>You can check out my bugs at http://dkoretz.smugmug.com/. Most were taken with a 100mm lens, some with an extension tube. My most common bug-hunting gear is a 100mm with a 36mm extension tube. However, there are lots there that were taken with a 60mm as well. It is possible, just harder. The key is practice--LOTS of practice--and a high tolerance for frustration and failure. Also, for some bugs, it helps to approach from their level rather than above.</p>

<p>The Canon has two advantages. It does not extend when focusing. The Tamron does. See http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-90mm-f-2.8-Di-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx. This is not something I would want when chasing bugs. Second, the Tamron does not have full-time manual focusing, which I use sometimes when shooting bugs.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>tnx Dan nice shot i see your website thats awesome <br>

i decide buy canon it seems more popular than tamron<br>

at least in macrophotography</p>

<p>I don't have much experience with the Tamron, but I can vouch for the Canon! It is great for a couple purposes, obviously it is a great macro lens and with my 6d full chip the colors and details are amazing! Check out this shot I took with the Canon 100MM. <br>

<img src=" alt="" />

Thanks,<br>

Mathew Irving<br /><a href="http://www.irvingphotographydenver.com/" target="_blank">Irving Photography Denver » Denver Wedding PhotographyHome » Irving Photography Denver</a><br />6d | 24-70 II L | 70-200 L | 135 F2 L | 85 1.2 L | 100 2.8 | 35 1.4 (Sigma/Art)</p>

As noted thay are both very good. The main difference is the Canon lens is an internal focus design but I believe the

Tamron is overall linear extension, this gets longer when it focuses closer.

 

100 mm is probably the ideal length for handholding with bugs.

 

A 180 can be nice for the larger bugs but needs more light to handhold.