Tamron 90mm macro as a fairly fast general lens?

[peteraitch]

I used my F80 recently with a Nikkor 28-105 f3.5-4.5 zoom to take

some available-light candid photos at an evening indoor function.

Fast film solved most shutter speed/DOF problems but the infamous

AF "hunting" was there big-time, resulting in some very irritating

shutter-lag. (Plus, I had to use the focus-assist lamp, which

alerted far too many people to my immediate presence.)

 

As a possible future solution, I was wondering if anyone has

experience of using the Tamron 90mm f2.8 AF macro lens in this kind

of context? Does it "hunt" (with the F80 body)? Will it focus OK

at low-ish light levels, even without the focus-assist lamp? How

crisp are the images at infinity? I've read the general reviews of

this lens, but can't find much that helps on these particular

aspects.

 

(Alas, I'm on a strict budget, so a non-macro alternative would

probably mean not getting a macro lens for a very long time. Also,

a faster Nikkor prime would cost me rather more than this Tamron!)

[arnabdas]

"As a possible future solution, I was wondering if anyone has experience of using the Tamron 90mm f2.8 AF macro lens in this kind of context? "

 

-- As a general lens, it could be good for street photography/candids. Indoors -- I'm not sure. Perhaps a zoom is more flexible there such as the Nikkor 28-70 f2.8 AFS,

 

"Does it "hunt" (with the F80 body)? Will it focus OK at low-ish light levels, even without the focus-assist lamp? "

 

-- I've had oppty to use this combo. It does not hunt much, but N80 has the habit of turning on focus assist at the slightest excuse. I believe you can stop the focus assist from one of the custom functions. Doesn't make much of a difference.

 

 

"How crisp are the images at infinity? I've read the general reviews of this lens, but can't find much that helps on these particular aspects"

 

 

-- Very nice details even at infinity. This is a very good lens. Manual focus is a bit too silky and build quality could be better. The AF/MF is switch by pulling focussing ring in/out which is a bit awkward. Otherwise, a fine lens for the money.

[Robert_Lai]

The AF sensor needs light, just as you do, in order to focus. F/3.5 to 4.5 is pretty dim when it's dark. I don't think that f/2.8 on the macro lens is going to help a whole lot, as it's only 1/2 a stop faster than your f/3.5 setting. Why don't you consider a plain old manual focus lens like a 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4? They're very cheap, super sharp, and have been used by street shooters for ages. I would also recommend the 35mm f/1.4 for such use, but the cost is considerably more. However, I was able to focus on people in a large room only illuminated by one light bulb (once my eyes had adjusted), using the 35mm f/1.4. Images are SUPER sharp with the 35mm or 50mm lens.<p>If you want to play with macro, I suggest you put some close up lenses in front of your zoom for now. Depending on your filter size, Nikon makes the 3T to 6T doublet close-up lenses. I'm familiar with the 5T, which is 1.5 diopter, and the 6T, which is 1.9 diopter, for 62mm filter size. I think the 3T and 4T are the same things in 52mm filter size, but someone can correct me on this. I just bought the bigger ones and use step up rings to accomodate all my lenses. That way, you'll know if you really want to get into the discipline required for macro without committing to an expensive lens.<p>Costing out this kit:<p>

50mm f/1.8 AI or AIS $75.00<p>

6T closeup doublet $40.00 (at B&H)<p>

Step up ring $6.50<p>

Total $121.50 (not including shipping, which is $4.50)

<p>

Hey, for under $130, you've got your low light street shooter and your macro. Life couldn't get any better.

[Rick Waller]

If you can swing the bucks for the Tamron 90 you will have an excellent macro lens. But, as Robert suggested, for everyday shooting, try to scrape a few more $$'s together and look to buy a used 50/1.8. You can get AF versions used for under $100 and the results will dazzle you in terms of sharpness, contrast, color, etc.

[Rick Waller]

look here:

 

http://www.keh.com/shop/product.cfm?bid=NA&cid=06&sid=newused&crid=5336869

 

A 50/1.8 AF for $89. You will not believe how good this lens is!

[arnabdas]

And you'll get a 100mm with a 2x TC!! Possibilities are endless ...

[david_blackburn1]

dont get a manual focus lens unless you are prepared to have no metering. the 50/1.8 AF is great, though. you should get one. sorry, i dont know anything about the tamron.

[todd peach seattle, washi]

Consider the Nikon 85/1.8 AFD, available used for around $200. I have used this on a D100 (substantially the same focus system as the F80) and it did OK in low light. I was shooting in a gym at ISO 800 f/2 @ 125 to give you an idea of the light levels. The RF design of the 85/1.8 gives it low focus 'mass' and it responds quickly. I tried a 135/2 AF-DC at the same event and had to set it aside because the camera was very often well behind on the focus solution.

 

A fast lens in the 85-105 range can be a remarkable tool that will help you see in ways you have not before. People often talk about how when they get their first macro lens, they get so into it that they shoot macro almost exclusively for a few years. I feel that way about a fast 85 or 105. It just has a way of plucking precisely what is 'beautiful' or 'interesting' out of a crowd.

[peteraitch]

Many thanks to all who have contributed advice.

 

I should have mentioned that I'm in the UK: the principles outlined apply - the prices, alas, do not! I did consider the 50mm 1.8, but I'll probably not go that way, since I still have my old Canon A-1 and 50mm f1.8 FD lens to allow low-light standard lens shooting. I'm more a telephoto person than wide-angle, so my other option, a new Nikkor 85mm AF 8, would be £340 here; a new Tamron 90mm AF macro lens would be £250 here! So, maybe I should consider a used example - but why would many people be off-loading this lens? I'm not planning on manual focus as a) I want a D-series to enable full metering B) my eyesight is not getting any better, especially in the darkening!

 

Still, plenty to ponder. I shall certainly reconsider the strength of my committment to macro photography (and I've long had auto-extension tubes for my Canon FD anyway).

[hayward]

I have an N80 and both the AF Tamron 90 2.8 and the AF Nikon 85 1.8. The Tamron is an EXCELLENT, razor-sharp lens and all thing being equal, I would choose it over the Nikon if I had to pick just one because of the outstanding macro capabilities.

 

For your purposes, however, the Nikon would be the better choice. It is also outstanding optically and its larger aperture will allow for quicker AF. The Tamron is not strong from an autofocus standpoint - one of reasons is that its macro capabilities allows for minute adjustments to focus. This results in the lens turning and "hunting" much more than the equivalent Nikon when focusing.

[hique]

If you do candids with the 28-105 zoom, you are likely to have a better portrait lens in low light with a tamron 90. But I think that only makes sense if you want a macro lens, cause if not a 85 1.8 would give you extra stop in low light.

 

Using a Ai or AI-s lens won't do the job for you. A 50mm AF lens can be very nice if you want the perspective of a 50mm.

 

The Tamron lens hunts a bit (I think any lens would hunt in low light) and the F80 focus assistant can be very handy.

 

The Tamron lens delivers very good quality even wide open.

 

Good luck

[todd peach seattle, washi]

<i>

but why would many people be off-loading this lens?</i>

<p>

Not for you to worry about, really. Suffice it to say that the 85/1.8 shows up often used. Here's some possible reasons:<br>

<ul>

<li>They love the speed of the 1.8, decide they want the 1.4, and they trade up.

<li>They determine they were really 'zoom people' and turn it in for a zoom. Alternative in the same vein: they sell it to finance an 80-200 f/2.8 (also excellent). They later learn that one does not replace the other and they really want both.

<li>They're down on their luck and need to raise cash.

</ul>

Most of those reasons also apply to the Tamron, but add to it "they can afford the Nikon now and they think it will be better in some way" (no opinions there, I haven't shot the Tamron).

[craig_andrew_yuill]

I will agree with others above that the 50mm f/1.8 Nikon lens is a very good one. I've taken some very nice, very sharp photos with it. But sometimes 50mm is not long enough. A 90mm lens is a decent short-telephoto lens, and the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 shouldn't disappoint you. I've got an earlier 90mm f/2.5 lens and have found that it takes razor-sharp photos at near and far distances. It's an outstanding general-purpose lens. It may or may not, however, be fast enough for the situation you described. I took a few rolls of 800-speed film with the 90mm f/2.5 in a high-school gymnasium covering a sporting event. It was just fast enough to freeze the action. An f/1.8 aperture would have allowed me to use a faster shutter speed and probably better capture the action. A 50mm lens, however, would have been much too short for that purpose. An 85mm (or 105mm) f/2 would have been a better lens. Good luck in making a decision.

[ci_p]

I have the tamron lens. I think it is great, but there are some issues when trying to use what is a macro lens for normal shooting.

 

It's not that it hunts much, but when it does, you can go and have a cofe while the lens moves to 1:1 and back. Focus limiter helps.

 

If using MF only a smal movement of the focusing ring makes for a large change in focus distance at "normal" shooting distances.

 

I paid 329ukp for mine, but I think it is about 290 now. With the above two caveats, I think it is the bisness. I also second the suggestion for 50mm f1.8 lens. It is good two.

[dan_knight]

Lots of good advice from others. I have both a Tamron 90/2.5 macro (the ancient MF

Adaptall version) and a Nikkor 85/1.8 AF. Bought the Nikkor for US$245 on eBay

about two years ago. This lens was the reason I chose Nikon over Canon or Minolta.

The 85/1.4 lenses are too rich for me.

 

The 85 offers the same speed as a 50 but with a much nicer perspective for candids,

portraits, low light, concerts, etc. Also great on a tripod for low light wedding shots

from the back of the church. Something about the 85mm focal lenght just feels very

right to me, moreso than a 100 or 105.

 

If you want a Tamron macro and want to shoot available light, seek out the older 90/

2.5 on the used market. It's about 1/3 to 1/2 stop brighter than the current 90/2.8

-- and a full stop faster than your zoom on the short end, about 1-1/2 to 1-2/3

stops faster at the long end. You'll gain macro plus a better shutter speed than the

2.8 lens can provide.

 

Don't know how common these are in your market, but Tamron makes fantastic

lenses. Macros have had floating elements for over 20 years now. And the 90/2.5 is

just one stop slower than the Nikkor 85/1.8.

 

If buget is a primary concern, your best alternative might be a 50/1.8 AF for low light

work plus a Vivitar or Phoenix 100/3.5 macro, which is inexpensive, unattractive, but

of exceptional optical quality. Could provide all you need with two low cost lenses.

 

I sympathize with your plight. If I didn't work in a camera shop and get first chance at

used hardware, I would still be without a macro lens today. It's probably not as

important a part of my collection as the 85/1.8, but there are definitely times when

it's the only lens for the job.

[peteraitch]

Well, I've finally decided (having finally got my Neopan 1600 shots back from the indoor function, using a 28-105 f3.5/4.5)...

 

50mm and wider isn't my preferred shooting style; 85mm Nikkor would be great for candids but expensive here (and no macro); 90mm Tamron f2.5 uses extension tubes for 1:1, is fairly big/heavy and isn't (I think) a D-lens, which is important as I won't be getting a ringflash!

 

That leaves the 90mm f2.8 AF macro - and it's my birthday in a couple of weeks! Hope those "specials" are still running...

 

Once again, thanks to all. PhotoNet is great resource with a real community feel to it (high praise indeed from a long-time CompuServe member!)

 

Peter