Canon 85/1.8 vs Tamron 90/2.8 macro for portraiture

[a_ego]

Dear colleagues, I would be grateful if you gave your opinion about

how the Canon 85/1.8 and Tamron 90/2.8 macro compare for portraiture

work - and more precisely - about sharpness, bokeh? (my 2nd daughter

is going to be born till the end of month and I need to decide soon!)

 

Last but not least, which of both lenses is best for secondary use of

landscape work and how do you compare them with the Canon 100/2.8 USM

macro - of course only in relation to the price, since the latter is

the sharpest lens in the category.

In Europe, where I live, there is a considerable price difference

between them (85/90 cost ~$/�440, while the 100/2.8 macro costs

~$/�650)

 

TIA

[richard harris]

Well all the lenses you mention are great, and both the macros are pretty much as good as each other in terms of sharpness, with the 85 probably just a touch behind them.

 

Having said that, unless you specifically want a macro lens you are probably best off with the 85, it is over a stop faster than the other two and is also considerably smaller and lighter. All three will be great for portraiture and landscape, with good bokeh - although some complain about the Canon 100 macro in this respect but I doubt wether it's really that bad or that much of an issue.

 

I can certainly vouch for the Tamron which is my favourite lens, however in your case I think that the Canon 85 is a better bet.<div></div>

[tony_b]

I agree with the previous answer, I think the 85/1.5 is the best choice if you dont need macro.

By the way, where in Europe can you find these lenses with the price you mentioned? in France, the 85/1.8 costs 550 $ and the 100/2.8 macro costs 840$.

[oliver_s.]

Tony, try <a href="http://www.ny-camera.net/language/france/index.htm">New York Camera</a> (mail order house in Welver, Germany) or--probably even less expensive--<a href="http://www.internet-foto.de">AC Foto</a> (mail order house in Aachen, Germany).<p>IME the Canon EF 100mm f:2.8 Macro USM's image quality is <i>much</i> better than the other lenses' ones. It's sharper and "more contrasty" than both. In these terms, the EF 85mm f:1.8 USM is slightly better than the Tamron 90mm/f:2.8 Macro, but the latter one has less distortion. Not that that matters in landscape photography, but the occasional architecture shot will look better with the Tamron. Both, however, can't compete with the Canon Macro.

[jackflesher]

FWIW, I've owned all three of the lenses and agree with Richard too. I'll add that the 90 Tamron is pretty soft at f2.8, but excellent by f4 and has great bokeh, but IMO f4 in a 90 isn't shallow enough DOF for some portraiture. Secondly, the 100 USM macro does exhibit some slight barrel distortion which may not be the best thing for critical portraits, though it is very sharp from f2.8 up. The 85/1.8 is just okay at f1.8 showing some significant vignetting, but it clears up pretty much by f2.4. IMHO it is not quite as sharp as either macro, but still a very, very good lens -- especially for the money.

 

Cheers,

[a_ego]

The prices I mentioned are from www.technikdirekt.de (more or less as the above two e-stores)

 

In fact I would NOT wish to buy anything from the US these horrible days for humanity even if I have many very dear US friends and relatives...

 

More than sharpness or larger diaphragm I consider contrast, colour rendition and distortion rate to be important for portraits.

So I am leaning to Tamron 90.. just because the 100 macro is really out of my budget for a prime...

By the way I found it for �399 at the above German site (almost less than in the US!)

And after all a macro photo possibility isn't bad at all.

(For very low light indoor heavy bokeh portraits I use my 50/1.8 with much attention for distortions�)

[mike_shot]

why not consider Sigma 105mm f2.8 Ex Macro? :-)

 

Mike

[raymond_raymond1]

I had 85/1.8 and have 90/2.8 macro

 

For Canon 85/1.8

 

- optically quite good

 

- mechanically excellent (USM, IF, full time MF, quite, fast), a joy to use

 

- mine had a sticky blade problem, i.e. the blades will not return to normal position, once in a while

 

- it is CANON!!! a stength

 

- then I upgrade to 85/1.2

 

For Tamron 90/2.8

 

- don't blame me, I find the Tamron is optically superior to the Canon

 

- when the focus limiter is on for taking portrait, it focuses quite fast, but quite noisy

 

- it can take macro shot, quite a useful funcion

 

- not IF, no full-time MF

 

- a bit plasticky construction

 

- it is a TAMRON, it is a weakness

 

Anyway, I sold my Canon 85/1.8 and still keep my Tamron 90/2.8. Because 1) I like the Tamron brand, and I like the lens, 2) the re-sell value of Tamron is just too low, I would rather let mould grow on it than to sell it cheaply

 

my 2 cents

[canon man]

"In fact I would NOT wish to buy anything from the US these horrible days for humanity even if I have many very dear US friends and relatives..."

 

Extremely inappropriate phrase. I am sure their are many of us here who could voice opinions...especially this dedicated student of History of the world. So far I have noticed that people have seemed to keep views of recent world events off this forum, and that is where they should stay...off this forum. I get my hand smacked for it, and this one I happen to take great offense to.

 

Daniel, son of David, son of Troy of the Sandlin clan of Scotland, exiled to the American colonies in the 1700s.

 

P.S Both my Grandfathers and all my GreatUncles and some of my Great Aunts served in the European Theatre as well as the Pacific. Many were wounded protecting those who insult them now. Before that it was their parents who answered the calls oftheir allies who spit on them now, many died, many, to be insulted like this now.

[andrew9]

The Canon 85 f1.8 is a great lens for portraiture work. It's cheap, light, and fast! I would stick to Canon lens instead of 3rd party lenses for future compatibility reasons. Also, very often macro lens are too sharp for portraits and you could be seeing stuff on the models' faces that you don't really want to see.

[d_y]

I have found (as other here have mentioned) the 85mm 1.8 and the 100mm 2.0 to both be very sharp - brutally sharp. Some facial blemishes become too apparent with these lenses.

 

One other thing you might consider. I have found Canon's close-up lens, the 250D, to be a suitable substitute for macro work. But, your intended usage might dictate that you buy a true macro lens. Because I don't require a true macro lens often the 250D works very well for me - again for my purposes.

 

One more bit of information that is 1 part disclosure and 1 part shamless plug. I am selling my 85mm 1.8. Why? I don't use it enough. My 50mm and my 70-200 get the job done for me.

[canon man]

My 28mm 50mm and the 70-200 2.8 L are definetly wicked sharp lenses. I bought the 70-200 as it can rival primes in most the work I have used it for and it was cheaper than all th eprimes I wanted combined. That would be the 85mm, 100 F2(non macro) the 1352.8L and the 200 2.8L. I am buying the 85mm and the 100mm this term as I would liek a set of primes from 28 to 100mm that are brutally sharp and lightweight when put on the front of my brick(1NHS)I would be interested in that 85mm if you are willing to contact me.

 

That said, I would always want the sharpest lens available even for portraits. Here is why, you can make a sharp lens softer but you can't make a soft lens sharper! Buy the sharpest lens you can and if you need to soften up for portraits use a soft focus filter. I bought my 70-200 2.8L used in brandnew condition, the man I bought it from included the 77mm Tiffen Soft focus filter he had bought for it for shooting pictures of the fairer sex. Yes, without the filter it will show every mole, wrinkle, and pimple on the face. But it will also show every bit of texture on a tulip when I shoot the tulips. When I do portraits with it I use the softfocus filter.

[d_y]

I agree with you Daniel. I've used the soft-focus filter on the 85mm because I felt it was too sharp for the effect I was going for. Still, I can borrow a friends 100mm and its 58mm filter size when I need to, which obviates my need for the 85.

[a_ego]

I see no insult in what I wrote above (perhaps, I should feel insulted by the unjustified polemic reaction and I could write down too my family tree and our fight for democracy since ancient Greece till the 1970s--> of course it would be ridiculus). In fact this forum is not a place for that kind of discussion and I really appreciate Daniel's 2nd contribution to the real content of my query.

 

Photographers need NOT to live in a crystal sphere, so YES they are allowed to make this kind of considerations - what the heck - at least when they purchase their equipment!

[canon man]

Yes all of this is inappropriate, and has no place here. If one makes the decision not to buy from here because the import taxes would be too stiff then that is quite fine. When one makes a reference that they will not buy from here because we are seen as murederes to the world, I would have to ask evreyone to turn that eye in on themselves. In order to point a finger at someone you automatically point three back to your own self.

No one on this forum belongs to a country without sin and no one is perfect. The dark days for humanity are not caused my we the people of America my freind. Everyone is guilty. Some, more so than others. Also maybe there are some that will turn and do something about a problem when everyone else turns a blind eye. The poeple of the world have turned a blind eye to certain people to long. The dark days of humanity are caused when ones neigbors allow their neighbors to beat their children and their wives. Or to turn the eye as Daddy goes to his daughters bed at night, the knowing neigbor that does nothing is just as guilty. In this case, there is someone much more evil, and a very proud people who live at the heart of the beginning of civilization have been murdered, raped and beaten for far too long. They live in fear. Soon that will be over, and they will be allowed to rebuild, and be the great nation they are capable of being. If for that reason, others across the world choose to hate me, so be it. When it is over, those great people will know who it was who sacrificed all to give them a hand. They will also know who would rather have seen them continue to suffer. I beleive in the people of Iraq.