I was recently shopping for a macro lens in Nikon mount in the 150-200 mm range and along the wway I stumbled across a lot of very positive comments about the Tamron 90mm macro. It certainly appears to have a lot of very well satisfied users.
I look for macro lens short time ago. I choose two of them one for myself and second for my frend. For myself i decided for Nikkor 40mm/2.8. But for me the price was very important. (In Poland it is half a price of any other, and this lens still have good reviews). Second i choose Tamron 90mm. It has good price, and very good review. The only disadvantage is "loudly and slow AF", but if it is really mcaro lens it's not so important. The same with the Sigma 105mm/2.8. You can see the photos from the two test: Tamron: [link] Sigma: [link] My frend said that he like this Tamron lens But... It's hard to say which is better when you have no possibilities to try first and second one.
What ever camera you have, Nikon, Canon etc, I would recommend you buy the micro lens that is manufactured for your camera. You would pay more, but you would have the highest quality lens for your camera. I have a D200 and both micro lenses are full frame lenses from Nikon: Nikkor micro 105 f2.8 stabilizer and the 60 f2.8 not stabilized. I get a further reach from the Nikon D200 small sensor. Once I get a full frame camera body; I will not have the reach the same reach. Good luck
In the review of tamron 90 mm only disadvantage is "loudly, slow AF" do you really think that it is eneough to pay 500 $ more for Nikkor? When we need macro lens AF is not so useful. So i don't think that it is worth to pay so much more.
I know the macro lenses from the same manufacturer are always better than that ones from secondary producers, but I am a student and do not have that much money. Saving up for a 105mm Nikon macro would take me years to go. That's why I consider a Tamron. It seems to be not identical to the Nikon lens (of course), but many people say it is comparable, because it is tac sharp and so on.
Those people are bullshitting. The unreachable number 1 in macro is Zeiss, it smokes the Canon and Nikon, it's miles ahead. It's also the best built lens, all metal construction, built like a bunker. However, it's manual focus only, but if ultimate image quality is your thing...
In the 180mm range, Sigma reigns supreme, Juza made a comparison to the Canon 180L macro, and the quality's the same at much lower price. Sigma's lens is also faster and has OS. There's also the Sigma 150mm that no one currently has an answer to. In the 90-100mm range I made the same test, and ended up with the Tamron (just for the record the Canon 100L is slightly sharper than Nikon's 105 macro). In this range, the Zeiss 100 smokes all the competition combined, but at the time I didn't have enough money for it (it's a $1800 lens, and my budget was $1000).
Heh, Zeiss are now working on a new line of lenses for high megapixel cameras, now that's an expensive lens! Actually Zeiss glass is only expensive when it comes to macro, their fast 50mm and 85mm lenses for example are actually cheaper than Canon and Nikon counterparts (granted, it's still expensive, but it's not astronomical).
Glad I could help, if you have any more questions, feel free to ask
Student photographer????? Ha Ha Ha He He He Ho Ho Ho LOL. I have tested all kinds of lenses with my 45 years of experience. The most reliable are the manufacturers of their own cameras. Carl Zeiss, Schneider, and Rodenstock are the best of non oem. Nonetheless, I still recommend lenses made by the manufacturers; they continue to make improves all the time. If you wish to buy other types of lenses for your Nikon, Canon, etc do it.
Yet, ironically, you act like a 12 year old, you talk like one as well. You could have 100 years of experience for all I care, it doesn't change the fact that Canon and Nikon glass isn't always the best quality of what's available...
A few years ago I debated getting the Tamron 90, the Sigma 105 or the Canon 100L.
I ended up with the Tamron since I felt it rendered the photos the best, and I'm not talking about just sharpness, but color reproduction and contrast as well. Plus, it was the cheapest. The AF is noisy, and hunts like crazy in low light, but I don't really care about that, since I found manual focusing to be much more reliable for macro work, and the Tamron had the best MF ring at the time, it felt smooth, well dampened and with a long throw. As for IS (or VC as Tamron calls it), well, been using it for few years, and honestly, never really needed it for what I do. It's really one of the best lenses out there. [link][link] <----these were shot with it at f/8, and this [link] was shot at f/11 and here's a shot wide open [link]
The only thing I don't like about it is that it feels a bit flimsy, and it's made mostly of plastic. That said, I don't see myself ever changing it, except maybe for the Zeiss makro planar 100mm, but that's not really a fair comparison, as the Zeiss is almost $2000.
Well, I've used it for paid work many times, and never had any complaints. It really is one of those rare gems, cheap, yet really great overall, like I said, I even picked it up over Canon's own L glass. It's made of plastic, and feels cheapish in the hands, but it's not THAT bad. I've dropped mine from around my waist once while changing lenses, and it just bounced a little. The barrel was scratched, but other than that, no harm to the lens itself. Everything works fine. So yeah, I'd say it's a great lens no matter what level you're at.
Yeah, so it's decently built. Of course, if build quality is that much of a concern to you, the new version of this lens is built like a tank, but it comes at a hefty price as well (optically it's pretty much the same, so only get the new version if you want the build quality, the silent focusing motor or the VC).
i do have it and i will just say one thing, go for it, it's a really great lens, probably one of the best you'll find on the market the AF may not be as fast as the sigma lenses but the sharpness, gosh i already had the really old one (non AF with interchangeable mounts) and i now have the pentax mount one without image stabilisation (actually, i don't care for it, in my pentax k-5 the stabilisation is in the camera ) and honestly i wouldn't change for any other macro lens (it's often said to be at least as good as camera manufacturer's ones) it's also a great lens for portrait even if it's sharpness may get you in trouble with your friends
my pleasure and thanks a lot for your nice comment few of the pictures here are made with this lens but this one ([link]) is for example, this one [link] too or this other one [link] where sharpness was important and some others