adzy Posted April 24, 2003 Share Posted April 24, 2003 Can anyone recount their experience with the tamron 90/2.8 SP in terms of picture quality, contrast, colour, flare, bokeh etc as compared to the canon 100/2.8 macro. I notice that photodo rates it rather high (4.3) and reviews on the net speak rather highly of it. I know that going with a 3rd party will mean no USM, and possibly inferior build quality. But as an amateur it is difficult to justify the higher canon expense, if the 2 lenses are comparable in picture quality. I would like to use the lens for both macro and portraits. I currently own a tamron 75-300 1:2 macro which I am seeking to replace with primes (~100 and a 200 and a couple of TCs) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_shot Posted April 24, 2003 Share Posted April 24, 2003 my experiece says: if you can go always for Canon lenses... are really superior piece of glasses. I own the new USM version and it's wonderful. It's the first glass in the world to be macro and not show the ridicolous helical that come out every time you want to focus. USM worth every penny and it's definitely faster than my 70-200 f4 L and all other EF lenses. Go for it if you can afford this lens. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vsevolod_krishchenko Posted April 24, 2003 Share Posted April 24, 2003 Better buy some cheap macro (sigma or tamron or old non-USM canon) for macro and Canon 85/1.8 or even 135/2.8 SF for portraits. Almost the same budget. Using macro lens for portraits causes real pain except your models are twenty years old and you always using AF for portraits :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron c sunshine coast,qld,a Posted April 24, 2003 Share Posted April 24, 2003 Honestly i would say that my EF100/2.8 macro has higher image quality than i need.I keep it because i got it cheap(ish).If i had to pay new retail i would definitely go for a cheaper option-all the 'other brands' have great reputations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_gill Posted April 24, 2003 Share Posted April 24, 2003 The Tamron is as sharp as any Canon lens I've owned or tried - including the L series. There are no compatability problems - I even had a play with it the 10D - I would recommend it over the Canon purely because it costs so much less. The autofocus is not perfect but for macro I don't believe any autofocus is - its far easier to focus manually and sway back and forth or use a macro focusing rail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_shot Posted April 24, 2003 Share Posted April 24, 2003 I want to add a little note: the new USM version of Canon macro lens is better optically than the old one and doesn't suffer flare like sigma and tamron. GO FOR THE CANON if you can... otherwise i suggest you to wait until you own money. I said so 'cause i think you're not a pro (pros, generally, doesn't answer these things and go directly for branded optics and have no money probs). Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markedwardsmith Posted April 24, 2003 Share Posted April 24, 2003 I have owned both. I still own the tamron. This is there best piece of glass that the company makes. It is a fine lens. Might not have the USM, but its still fast. Fast focus should not be an issue when talking about Portraits or Macro anyway, the quality of the glass should be. http://www.photographyreview.com/pscLenses/35mm,Primes/PLS_3111_84crx.aspx Take a look at the link above. This would give you additional info on what people think about it. The Canon lens is great, but this is a better VALUE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eosdoc Posted April 24, 2003 Share Posted April 24, 2003 <a href=mailto:uce@ftc.gov></a>I have the EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro. USM allows FTM, without whichthe Almost Trap Focus would be impossible. YMMV. See:<BR> <a href=http://eosdoc.com/manuals.asp?q=E7TrapFocus>http://eosdoc.com/manuals.asp?q=E7TrapFocus</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_hahn1 Posted April 24, 2003 Share Posted April 24, 2003 I bought the Tamron used for alot less than I could find the Canon for, and the hood and a soft bag came with it. The Autofocus isn't as fast as USM but pretty fast, it is noisy however. The build quality is decent but not outstanding. The lens seems very sharp to me. Also no incompatibility problems with my Elan 7e at all. Its my only non-Canon lens and I'm very happy with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pdoyle Posted April 24, 2003 Share Posted April 24, 2003 What am I missing here? B&H lists both these lenses for about the same price ($440) -- what is the big price difference everyone is talking about? Are you looking at used lenses? Maybe that's where a price difference would appear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_lo Posted April 24, 2003 Share Posted April 24, 2003 Not sure if its relevant or not, I owned the old version of Tamron SP AF 90mm F2.5 for my old Minolta Alpha 7000i. And I was quite disappointed in terms of sharpness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_shot Posted April 24, 2003 Share Posted April 24, 2003 The first version of first serie is the best lens in terms of sharpness and general results in Tamron home. The others were junk. The new one is decent for the price. The real beasts are Canon 100 f2.8 USM and Nikon 105 Micro. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymond_raymond1 Posted April 24, 2003 Share Posted April 24, 2003 I have the Tamron, it is a great performer optically. Although I do not have a Canon, but Canon's specification sounds just perfect to me, especially the internal focus, FTM, and USM motor. If I lose my Tamron and would have to buy a new one, I will go for Canon. Also, compare with other L lens, the Canon 100mm macro is very value for money. One more point, the re-sell value for Canon is much higher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcin harla Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 Some people have experience with tamron, and some with canon. Rarely they own both lenses, so they don't have direct comparison. I own Canon EF 100mm Macro 1:2.8 USM and it's a great lens. But again, i don't have any experience with Tamron. If the difference in price is really that great, rent both lenses if you have the chance, and test them. If difference is like $50, go with Canon, as many claim Canon to be superior, plus no compatibility issues in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_shot Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 I've worked with canon USM, tamron and especially sigma 105. They are three wonderful piece of glasses but the canon one is superior in sharpness, contrast, color rendition and one hundred things too. I've taken the 100 macro.. it's the sharpest lens i ever seen. And it's the only lens in the world that can achieve 1:1 macro ratio without change dimension... and has USM with FTM. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_gregar1 Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 I own the Tamron 90mm/2.8 and I just bought the Canon USM lens. Tamron sharper, lighter, smaller, cheaper Canon, better auto and manual focus, better contrast, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_shot Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 Have you done complete tests? Can i saw results? Thanks. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now