the photo addict Posted May 24, 2003 Share Posted May 24, 2003 After purchasing a 10D, I am now considering adding a macro lens. Would somebody please give me advice as to which of these two macro lenses is better? I cannot find any independent comparison on these two lenses. The Canon EF100/f2.8 macro costs US$423 vs Tamron AF90/f2.8 SP macro costs US$346 here in HK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimvanson Posted May 24, 2003 Share Posted May 24, 2003 I'd buy the almost as good Tamrom and then use the leftover $$$ to get a Canon 50mm f1.8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rover Posted May 24, 2003 Share Posted May 24, 2003 You may also consider the Sigma 105/f2.8 macro. It also is a very good quality lens and even less expensive than the Tamron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron c sunshine coast,qld,a Posted May 24, 2003 Share Posted May 24, 2003 The canon version is about as good as lenses get for image quality.But then again the tamron and even the sigma aren't far behind.You really can't go far wrong,quite a nice prediciment to be in! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eos 10 fan Posted May 24, 2003 Share Posted May 24, 2003 Someone jump in and correct me if I'm wrong. IIRC the Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro does not change length, but the Tamron extends its inner barrel about 33%-50% when used at its closest focus. -- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted May 25, 2003 Share Posted May 25, 2003 As far as I've heard, all three lenses are optically excellent. So, for pure macro shots you may consider any of them. However... 1. I'd rule out the Sigma as it is very probable that you will encounter compatibility problems in the future. Tamron is about zero problems in this area (I've heard a rumor that Tamron bought the EF mount license from Canon). 2. Are you going to use it to other purposes but macro ? If so, the Canon is vastly superior due to it's USM. I also think that the Canon is the only one which have IF. It's very convenient for handheld shots. 3. Canon lenses have about 80%-90% re-sale value while third party go for about 50%. Happy shooting ,Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the photo addict Posted May 25, 2003 Author Share Posted May 25, 2003 Thanks Jaim, Ralph, Ron, Dan, and Yakim for your advice. I know which choice to make now. In fact I do plan to use this lens other than macro work. While image quality is important, the quality of the build is also important. Their respective prices reflect that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_tan Posted May 29, 2003 Share Posted May 29, 2003 I have the Tamron AF90/f2.8 SP macro, and I'm happy with it. Here's my contribution : - The problem I have with it is the focusing distance when you have the hood on.. I tend to bump into my subject, if i'm not careful.... Now i usually take it off, when I stalk an insect. - As compared to the Canon, the Tamron is 200g lighter and might be good if you want to keep the weight down since 10D is quite heavy i think. - The Manual focus (push/pull activation) on the Tamron is pretty nifty too. - I think the Tamron is a newer lens compared to the Canon. - The 100mm on the Canon might give a better focusing distance. - And like someone said, you could get a 50mm 1.8 (which is sharp) and a Tamron 90mm versus a 100mm Canon Macro. - The Tamron lens is pretty quiet, whereas the Canon might be a little noisy (dont own one, but I'm speculating because it uses an older focusing mechanism) - The tamron comes with a hood, compared to the canon ones i have, does not come with the box. - But with a dslr, all might be different... as it becomes a 140mm telephoto macro lens for you?! (i think) - The Tamron has all the functions that the Canon has. - I heard the Sigma 105EX is pretty good too, and might be cheaper than the Tamron and Canon. - But if I can spend, I dont mind getting the canon for an all canon setup.. You can see some macro shots in my portfolio with the lens. (Some are not sharp, as i usually shoot wide open because i dont have a flash AND i'm an amature) But you get the idea.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob de la selva Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 I have never heard a bad word about the Canon 100mm macro in terms of image quality. I have the Tamron 90mm SP. Yes, it is sharp. I've just bought a 10D, but haven't tried them together yet. The inner barrel extends 50% or more in length when close focusing. I find that I get grit in between inner and outer barrel of lens, which feels unpleasant when focusing. I have NEVER used the lens hood despite having owned the lens for 5 years, but I have it in my camera bag as I'm going to use it someday soon! I bought the Tamron because of cost, and 'near-Canon macro' performance. However, the price you quote is only $70 cheaper. I've always been slightly uneasy about owning a non-canon lens (!) At the above prices, I'd stick with Canon, but if you choose the Tamron you'll find it's a worthy macro lens. Rob 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