|
I have one. Like most macro lenses it's very sharp. Some people would say too sharp for portraits but that's easy fixed in PP. I don't have a massive number of shots posted using it but here's one -
Posted 51 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
when i was looking for a macro lens a year o so ago, I was torn between the Tamron 90mm and the Sigma 105mm. I don't know if you have considered the sigma, but I ended up liking its results just a bit better.
Posted 51 months ago.
(permalink)
|
 |
Darin Clapp [deleted] says:
I dont have this lens either, something to consider is focal length you'll end up with when the multiplier for small sensor bodies is added in. With an APS-C size sensor, you'll end up with the equivalent of a 135mm lens on 35mm. For me that is too long for what I need. I got the Sigma 70/2.8 Macro instead which gives an equivalent coverage of 105 on my small sensor camera.
Just something to consider in making your decision.
Posted 51 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Whatever one you get, I suggest the longer one (notice I'm not naming any brands here).
I tried to shoot little critters with a 60mm and ended up scaring them all away. Once I got around the 105 and longer range, much better. You can be far enough away without freaking out the wildlife. Now if you only plan to do flowers, then I guess it doesn't matter.
Posted 51 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I have it. I am on my second copy (I had it in Canon and then switched to NIkon and got it again). It is a fantastic lens for the money. You really cannot get any better. And I find the AF accurate and on my D2H is pretty fast, although on lesser bodies it can be quite slow.
A few shots of mine with it www.flickr.com/photos/panos_voudouris/tags/tamron9028/
I've kind of relegated it to macro duty only since I bought the Sigma 50-150 but it is a very nice lens for portraiture too and the bokeh is really smooth.
Posted 51 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Here is my experience with macro. Its a lot of fun and a lot of shock value comes from it. Its really great to show people a side of the world they've never seen before. I've used a SIGMA 105mm and a Canon 100mm. Both are great lenses and will get the job done. I agree with Bo Eder. Try and keep it Longer. With a nice long lens you really can get great shots while keeping your distance. I do warn you however. I thought I would do macro forever. But as time passed and my skills in photography evolved, I rarely find time for it anymore and my interests have completely gone towards people. So all I am saying is, before you spend the money really know what your style is and what you really like. If i could go back and do it again I wouldn't have spent the 500 on a Macro. At any rate here is my macro section.
flickr.com/photos/clydedains/sets/72157600041676185/
Clyde
Posted 51 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
My main lenses are the Tamron 90mm and the Nikon 60mm micro-nikkor. Both are fantastic lenses. They are very sharp so you need to be sure to light well, i.e flattering. I suggest using both in manual over auto regardless of what body you use and especially in low light.
Shot with the 90mm Tamron:
Posted 51 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Thanks for the replies so far! I'll check otu the other lenses that were mentioned...just that the Tamron is really reasonably priced and I have read a lot of good thigns about it... and now they are offering a $90 rebate so that plus the weak dollar make it REALLY cheap for me.
Posted 51 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I have the Tamron and only use it for Macros.
If it's portraits you are after you are much better off with the Nikkor 85/1.8.
Samples:
Posted 51 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Be advised... all 3 versions of these 90/100/105 versions of macro lens made by Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina are non-internal-focus lenses. You'll notice the barrel moving in and out and takes a little while for the barrel to travel. Focusing with these macro lens even with the built-in focus limiter would be slower than normal lens or the Nikon/Canon internal focus versions. This down side magnifies into a much bigger problem if you're shooting under low light conditions or subjects that's hard to focus because it would take forever for the lens to hunt back and forth to lock the focus. Manual focusing ain't easy either if your subject is in motion.
If you're looking for a special effect lens or want to explore the macro world, you wouldn't be disappointed with the sharpness of all 3 flavors no matter which one you choose. However, keep in mind that the focus speed would pose problems when using them as "walk-around lenses".
Note: I find myself sticking the with 50mm F/1.8 more than whipping out my Sigma 105mm F/2.8 for closeup shots, and almost only use the macro lens for what it's made for - macro.
Originally posted 51 months ago.
(permalink)
Herman Au - http://www.hermanau.com edited this topic 51 months ago.
|
|
I have the tamrom 90 and love it, very sharp, and it does a nice portrait.
Posted 51 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
Strobist.com /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Strobist.com discussion threads
