Review: Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 1:1 Macro VC USD

[mrsfotografie]

Do you think it's a worthwhile upgrade for those who have the 'old' non-VC version??

I definitely do, particularly since you get not only a slightly sharper macro lens, but also because you get a much more effective modern medium telephoto with a great stabilizer. The new lens does a lot of things really well and doubles as a great general purpose lens. I think its worth the upgrade, particularly if you can get a decent price on the used market for your old one.

Thanks, I may consider putting this lens in my upgrade path. I really like that the new version is non-extending. FWIW the image quality from the old macro is fabulous, not so much the looks of the thing... : ;D

I haven't used the old version myself, but your report confirms what pretty much everyone has said. I'm surprised the new lens hasn't had more buzz, but that may be because it was overpriced (particularly in Europe) on introduction. It is a very worthy lens, though, and a great choice now that the price is reasonable.

Because I hadn't used my 90mm macro for a while, and because I wanted to reconfirm the focal length and working distance on a full frame body (I'm selling my 7D), I took the lens to the zoo. 90 mm macro still works for me at least for butterflies, even on full frame but an image stabilizer would be very welcome.

I gave my 70-200+1.4 TC a go as well, but without a 1.6 crop factor the maximum magnification isn't quite sufficient for butterflies and such. That makes a good near focusing lens something I require more than before.

Hence, based on your review I'm strongly considering upgrading to the new version - for the convenience of the image stabilizer mostly. I'm sticking with Tamron for macro use, because as I mentioned before I don't do enough macro to justify an 'L' lens.

There's still nothing wrong with the image quality from the old lens, here's a few samples that I took today. Note that it was rather dark and the excellent high iso performance of the 5DMkIII is a real asset:

Those are some very nice photos! Well done.

Thank you very much! Maybe I should consider doing more 'macro' work

 

[BoneDoc]

Great review and wonderful set of images Dustin. I wouldn't expect anything less from you

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Great review and wonderful set of images Dustin. I wouldn't expect anything less from you

That's very nice. Thanks!

 

[mrsfotografie]

Ok, I put my Tamron 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro up for sale today....

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Ok, I put my Tamron 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro up for sale today....

Keep me posted on how you like the new one.

 

[mrsfotografie]

Ok, I put my Tamron 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro up for sale today....

Keep me posted on how you like the new one.

Will do, but first have to sell

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Here's another shot from this lens:


Frozen by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

 

[mrsfotografie]

Here's another shot from this lens:


Frozen by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

Fantastic! How do you manage at the low temperatures you experience? I went to an ice sculptures festival at -8C and had really painful fingers afterwards ( I was wearing black painters gloves that are sufficiently warm for most of my 0+ C outings).

Now that I'm digging into macro lenses, I find I'm torn between the new Tammy, the 100mm Canon 'L', and the 150 mm Sigma. They all seem to have some benefits to them. For the Tamron it's price and quality, the Canon has a slightly more pleasing bokeh (if I'm correct) and it would help me reduce my variety in filter sizes, the Sigma has the benefit of a longer working distance and it is a super-apochromatic lens but it has no weather sealing.

Knowing that you own the Canon, would you say it gives more pleasing images than the Tamron? I'm looking for the best and most useful macro here, please do not consider the cost of these lenses as I can afford to buy any one of them (but not all of them ;D ).

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Here's another shot from this lens:


Frozen by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

Fantastic! How do you manage at the low temperatures you experience? I went to an ice sculptures festival at -8C and had really painful fingers afterwards ( I was wearing black painters gloves that are sufficiently warm for most of my 0+ C outings).

Now that I'm digging into macro lenses, I find I'm torn between the new Tammy, the 100mm Canon 'L', and the 150 mm Sigma. They all seem to have some benefits to them. For the Tamron it's price and quality, the Canon has a slightly more pleasing bokeh (if I'm correct) and it would help me reduce my variety in filter sizes, the Sigma has the benefit of a longer working distance and it is a super-apochromatic lens but it has no weather sealing.

Knowing that you own the Canon, would you say it gives more pleasing images than the Tamron? I'm looking for the best and most useful macro here, please do not consider the cost of these lenses as I can afford to buy any one of them (but not all of them ;D ).

I really love my 100L, and I do think the focusing is a bit better on it. The Tamron is just as sharp (if not slightly moreso), but the 100L is pretty special. If you can get a good price on it, it is still my favorite choice. If there isn't a deal, I think the Tamron is the better buy.

I sometimes wear two sets of gloves into the field. One very tight, close fitting pair (basically neoprene) that I use for shooting, and then a second pair that is a little heavier for the "in-between" times.

 

[mrsfotografie]

There's a good chance I'll go for the 'L', also because it may be a bit better investment. So far the bids for my Tamron are a little disappointing because the new version is pushing down the resale value of the old model. As for the Sigma, the way they're updating their lenses I expect a 150mm 'A' shortly. The Sigma is also rather massive, not sure I'd like that.

Thanks for sharing re. gloves to wear. I was in there for about 2 hrs almost continuously holding my camera. I tried to warm my hands in my pockets every once in awhile but as for comfort it was going downhill anyway...

 

[mrsfotografie]

Personal lens status update: Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro sold, Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM bought! I'm expecting it in the mail tomorrow

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Personal lens status update: Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro sold, Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM bought! I'm expecting it in the mail tomorrow

Congrats!

 

[mrsfotografie]

Personal lens status update: Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro sold, Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM bought! I'm expecting it in the mail tomorrow

Congrats!

And to think is was all because of your great review of the excellent new Tamron

 

[CarlTN]

Personal lens status update: Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro sold, Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM bought! I'm expecting it in the mail tomorrow

Congrats!

And to think is was all because of your great review of the excellent new Tamron

You sold your Tamron because Justin wrote an excellent review of it, and bought the Canon? Makes no sense...

I've considered buying this new Tamron lens, it looks like a terrific value relative to the Canon. It might even be as sharp or sharper than the Canon...probably determined mostly by sample variation. Probably not a lot of difference either way, but mainly I would prefer 90mm to 100mm focal length...besides the lower price.

My main photographic work does not encompass much macro, so that is the main reason I've decided against buying a macro lens.

 

[mrsfotografie]

Personal lens status update: Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro sold, Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM bought! I'm expecting it in the mail tomorrow

Congrats!

And to think is was all because of your great review of the excellent new Tamron

You sold your Tamron because Justin wrote an excellent review of it, and bought the Canon? Makes no sense...

I've considered buying this new Tamron lens, it looks like a terrific value relative to the Canon. It might even be as sharp or sharper than the Canon...probably determined mostly by sample variation. Probably not a lot of difference either way, but mainly I would prefer 90mm to 100mm focal length...besides the lower price.

My main photographic work does not encompass much macro, so that is the main reason I've decided against buying a macro lens.

Well, all things considering, and Dustin's recommendations aside from price I'd say the Canon is the better lens, and promises to retain its value better in the long run Besides that I'd like that little extra focal length, I think it will serve me well despite the small difference.

 

[CarlTN]

Personal lens status update: Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro sold, Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM bought! I'm expecting it in the mail tomorrow

Congrats!

And to think is was all because of your great review of the excellent new Tamron

You sold your Tamron because Justin wrote an excellent review of it, and bought the Canon? Makes no sense...

I've considered buying this new Tamron lens, it looks like a terrific value relative to the Canon. It might even be as sharp or sharper than the Canon...probably determined mostly by sample variation. Probably not a lot of difference either way, but mainly I would prefer 90mm to 100mm focal length...besides the lower price.

My main photographic work does not encompass much macro, so that is the main reason I've decided against buying a macro lens.

Well, all things considering, and Dustin's recommendations aside from price I'd say the Canon is the better lens, and promises to retain its value better in the long run Besides that I'd like that little extra focal length, I think it will serve me well despite the small difference.

Ah, you mean Justin has found a Tamron lens he doesn't like? Perhaps I should read over the review!

 

[mrsfotografie]

Personal lens status update: Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro sold, Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM bought! I'm expecting it in the mail tomorrow

Congrats!

And to think is was all because of your great review of the excellent new Tamron

You sold your Tamron because Justin wrote an excellent review of it, and bought the Canon? Makes no sense...

I've considered buying this new Tamron lens, it looks like a terrific value relative to the Canon. It might even be as sharp or sharper than the Canon...probably determined mostly by sample variation. Probably not a lot of difference either way, but mainly I would prefer 90mm to 100mm focal length...besides the lower price.

My main photographic work does not encompass much macro, so that is the main reason I've decided against buying a macro lens.

Well, all things considering, and Dustin's recommendations aside from price I'd say the Canon is the better lens, and promises to retain its value better in the long run Besides that I'd like that little extra focal length, I think it will serve me well despite the small difference.

Ah, you mean Justin has found a Tamron lens he doesn't like? Perhaps I should read over the review!

Errrhh no... the review triggered me to review the way I look at Macro lenses, and the outcome turned out to be slightly unexpected. Consider it a journey, not everything in life is straight forward

 

[wickidwombat]

nice review as usual but i'm not sure how this will do against the canon 100 f2.8L
I bought my canon for a bit over $800 a couple of years ago brand new off ebay (from digital rev I think)

so there is not much of a price gap certainly not one worth the trade offs related to going tamron over canon

especially considering you say the build isn't up to the canon, its got 10mm less focal length which is important in macro

dunno how it will do its certainly not a situp and take notice lens like the 150-600 or even the new 24-70 and 70-200 combo vs their much more expensive canon competitors

i think this tamron will have a huge price drop in a while when they dont sell well, once that happens they will become more popular no doubt. I think its price needs to be in the $400 to $500 range to have more appeal to people looking for good optics at a lower cost to the canon or nikon genuine lenses

 

[CarlTN]

nice review as usual but i'm not sure how this will do against the canon 100 f2.8L
I bought my canon for a bit over $800 a couple of years ago brand new off ebay (from digital rev I think)

so there is not much of a price gap certainly not one worth the trade offs related to going tamron over canon

especially considering you say the build isn't up to the canon, its got 10mm less focal length which is important in macro

dunno how it will do its certainly not a situp and take notice lens like the 150-600 or even the new 24-70 and 70-200 combo vs their much more expensive canon competitors

i think this tamron will have a huge price drop in a while when they dont sell well, once that happens they will become more popular no doubt. I think its price needs to be in the $400 to $500 range to have more appeal to people looking for good optics at a lower cost to the canon or nikon genuine lenses

But how do you really feel about it?