Carl, thanks for posting the review of the Tamron 90mm Macro up here, I've seen pictures in various places over the net taken with this lens and it has always got my attention your review was well what I was feeling this lens might be; great value for money, better than average bokeh, and as sharp as anything equivalent !! the added bonus is the way this lens really nails colour. Your review and sample shots have put this lens on my "must have" list.

Many thanks

Tony Clarke.

Glad this helped! Thanks for joining up and for your feedback. It really helps.

Carl

Carl - great review, hit all the points you would expect to see covered in great detail yet easy to understand. You have a very affable writing style...

My question - in your opinion is this lens better suited for a "macro" only application; or could it be used for general photography, portraits, low-light non flash situations?

I have an event coming up which I might require some much faster glass than I have now...

Thanks,

Hapster

Thank you very much, and I'm so glad you didn't say "laffable" instead ;)

For the lens, as long as you had a nice flash set up for studio work it would do a good job too. As long as subjects aren't too close you wont get any lens shadows from firing the flash. I have a 50mm too, and for what I do I find it a bit more versatile for the focal length yet I could see the Tamron affording you some relief from your subject for portraits, and that might be a good thing.

I will say that renting the lens might be a good idea too. Try it out for size. If that isn't an option I'd take you camera to a shop to try out a few lenses at the counter, see how they feel to you and your needs.

Carl

Carl, Nice review! But in the end, apart from money, which would you choose, Sony 100mm or the Tamron 90mm. Is there a "big" difference? Is the Tamron usable for portrait and some non-macro indoor shooting? Is the AF faster/better on the Sony or Tammy?

Cheers! Robert! Love the site btw. I would like to see a A200 review in the near future, because the "slow" AF on my A100 is getting in the way and maybe the A200 might be an alternative to the "expensive" A700.

I will know more about the Sony 100mm as soon as I have a copy, that is coming. Based on reviews out there of both, the Sony wins overall. We'll see though.

The A200 review you wish for will be granted, sooner than later I hope. Hang in there, it is one of our top priorities right now as is the A350, both of which we will have as soon as possible.

Carl

Nice review Carl. The samples look great. Could you also add some other objects as test subjects. I am thinking of cans, bottles, coins, etc.

Royston

I might do that.

Carl

90 + 45 = 135 with my older Tammie on a 7D. Have they changed the specs?

What is my deal!

The Tammy was the macro I wanted for the 5D, but due to circumstance (and a bargain on Ebay), ended up with the Sigma 105mm.

Would be interesting to see comparitive reviews with the main players, ie, Tamron 90, Sony 100 and Sigma 105; Sony 70-300G, Tamron 70-300mm and Sigma 70-300mm APO.

1) Would show where the money goes!
2) Enable us to see clearly which would suit our needs.

Another great review Carl!

CJ

Carl,

Based largely on your review I bought a Tamron 90 and have used it now for about a month. I would agree with everything you said in your review. Great lens, great images using it.

Thanks,
Dick

Carl,

I'm very interested in this lens, because it is so good and cheap compared to de sony. The sony is probably somewhat sharper, but I don'nt think my 10mp can resolve that. Anyway I've read that with the tamron getting to 1:1 focus the aperture jumps to 5,6 in stead of 2,8. Is that so or is the DOF so think at 1:1 that you have to go to 5,6 and up? Does the sony do this also?

Cheers, Robert ... would like to see a test with the sony version.

And for my money, it is a toss up between the Sony 100mm and this one.

And both are 2.8 at 1:1, never heard or seen contrary :)

I think you can get the Tamron for a really good deal too. The Sony/KM 100mm macro is legendary however. And if you end up with a 12mp or higher body, its something to consider.

Again a toss up. Tamron for the money is always hard to beat, and wins most of the time in my experience.

Carl

I am a macro photographer and I had always assumed that image stabilization worked under 1:1 macro conditions. For my work, a flip out live view LCD and Image stabilization (IS) or vibration reduction (VR) are essential. They are the key features present in the new A300/350 that allow me to consider upgrading from my P&S.

So I was a bit surprised to read in a 2006 (updated in 2008) review of the Nikon 105mm VR macro lens:
"Nikon has flat out said to turn off VR for macro use ............. At 1:1 (the closest focus distance), it may not impart any benefit (it didn't seem to in the testing conditions I could create)."
http://www.bythom.com/105AFSlens.htm

This morning I tested my P&S with my high magnification macro add on lens. My minimum focus area (maximum macro) was less than 7/16" wide compared to 15/16" wide for the Tamron AF 90mm (I guess this means my system is at higher magnification). I always try to shoot at maximum macro (10x zoom fully zoomed) and vary the macro lens to get best framing/magnification.

I photographed one word in some very small print - 7 pics with, and 7 pics without the image stabilization. I used my steadiest sitting position with a "locked" triangle formed between my head (viewfinder) with hands on either side of the camera and elbows braced and tried for maximum steadiness as I pushed the shutter. The result on the computer was that all the image stabilized pics were reasonable but only one of the pics without stabilization was comparable - and some of the others were quite blurred. Also, the camera shake when image stabilization was turned off was significant as seen through the viewfinder.

It would be great to hear about the 1:1 macro experience with A series cameras and the Tamron or Sony macro lenses.

Carl, it was difficult to know where to post this item but because the A300/350 is my interest I hope it is okay to post it here. btw, there is one feature I like about the Nikon lens - for me the non-extending lens barrel is a plus.

Any and all macros lose effective speed as you focus closer. In fact, all lenses, macro or otherwise, do so -- but it's only when you get to the macro range that it becomes noticeable as a rule. The basic reasoning is that as you focus closer and closer, more and more of the light coming through the lens falls outside of the sensor area (or film plane, as the case once was...)

For example, doing a quick test with the lighting in my office at the moment, I get 1/10th second focused at infinity, 1/4th second focused at 1:1, and 1.5 seconds with the lens at 1:1 and another 48mm of extension tubes added behind that (all with the aperture set to f/4, ISO 100, constant lighting). That's with the old Minolta 50/2.8 macro, but with the K/M or Sony/Zeiss, Tamron, or essentially anything else the same focal length, the results would be essentially the same. At a longer focal length, the effect of a given amount of extension tube would be smaller -- both in terms of effect on light transmission and on the image reproduction size. If you added enough more extension tubes to get the same image reproduction size, it would have the same effect on exposure as well.

There's also a double whammy: as you get closer, your light transmission at a given f/stop gets smaller at the same time as you're forced to shut down the aperture to keep even a little depth of field (can you say "Tripod" boys and girls? I knew you could...)

There's a fairly good explanation (including charts, tables, etc., of the exposure factors) at:
www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~rbhome/bellows15.pdf

Thanks for your comments Jerry.
Looking back, my post could have been a bit clearer. My main question was a practical one: At 1:1 macro using the A300/350 does the SSS image stabilization improve picture quality? Does it work?

The review I cited states that image stabilization is completely ineffective at 1:1 macro - but I reconfirmed that at least with my P&S at >1:1 macro IS is still of considerable benefit. I use the aperture control setting for macro and set to maximum f number (only f8 with P&Ss) for best dof which resulted in a shutter speed of 1/10th second (low light because indoors).

I'd say SSS works reasonably well for macro work. I just did a quick test, and (for example) using the 100/2.8 macro at 1:1 at 1/60th, with SSS turned on, I'd say about three out of four shots were reasonably sharp. With SSS turned off, only about one out of four was close to as sharp.

It is true that at that close of a range, DoF is shallow -- and SSS does nothing to help you with getting the plane of focus where you want it. For my impromptu testing, I shot the label of a CD from a slight angle, so something would be focused in essentially every case.

From a practical viewpoint, this is probably the biggest problem -- this weekend I spotted an ant carrying a grain of sand that looked like it outweighed the ant itself by about 2:1. It was in broad sunlight, so I was shooting at something like 1/250th. Camera shake wasn't really a problem from a viewpoint of getting something sharp -- but none of the three shots I took is focused where I'd really like it. One's really bad, one mediocre and one _bordering_ on reasonable -- and doing a quick check, those were shot at f/6.7. If I'd been shooting anywhere close to wide open, I seriously doubt I'd have gotten anything even approaching usable.

Final note: the testing I did probably wasn't sufficient to establish a statistically significant sample, and I didn't try to do any objective measurement of how sharp each picture was or anything like that. As such, you should probably take the test with a grain of salt -- but the difference from turning SSS on seemed fairly apparent to me.

I would like to know does Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di for sony mount have aperture ring to adjust? I saw some photo which has aperture ring but some doesn't. Are there any different version for different mount?

Hey Reeve,

I believe the aperture ring is for the Nikon version of the lens. Sony and I think Canon mounts do not have the aperture rings.

I went into a local camera store yesterday to see if I could test out this lens as I'm interested in picking one up around Christmas time. Anyways, the salesman said that it was discontinued, but that they could still order some in right now. He said that it would be less likely to be able to get one in around December though. Why would Tamron discontinue this lens without having a direct replacement for it? Well, I guess I'll have to keep my eye out for it or another similar lens when the time comes. Any suggestions as to other similar price/performance lens?

I just got a Nikon mount version and I was shocked to find that, contrary to all the documentation and reviews I've read on the web, it _does not_ have an aperture ring, so if you were planning to get this for a mechanical Nikon f-mount without attaching it to actual up-to-date Nikon electronics, don't, unless you can get by with a lens stuck on f/32. According to the leaflet in the camera box, the Pentax mount is the only one of the four 272E versions that has a manual aperture ring. Strangely, the B01, its 180 mm cousin, does have the aperture ring on the Nikon mount. Go figure.

Carl,

I'm needing a macro lens to fit my Sony A350. Ideally i'm interested in shooting bugs and flowers. I've been asked to do some food photography for a friends business.

I'm stuck between the Tamron 90mm f2.8 & Tamron 60mm f2. The 60mm lens is £150 more expensive in the camera store. That £150 would go most of the way to buying a manfrotto tripod which I also need.

Is there a greater benefit to getting the 60mm lens over the 90mm other than the obvious speed difference.

Your opinion would be most welcome.

Steven

you don't want the 60mm but the 90mm.

If anything you would want the 180mm for bugs but that is not good for flowers.

The 90mm is the better range by far for what you are talking about and could be used with an extension tube for small bugs.

Most people do not use wide open apertures for Macro's but are actually using f8 and smaller to get more DOF so the f2/f2.8 difference will not matter in many/most cases. Of course there are some people who like large apertures and some circumstances where it is useful. Remember though that the DOF on a 60mm with f2 and a 90 mm with f2.8 is not very different because as the lens gets longer the DOF gets narrower. Probably one of the reasons Tamron chose to use f2 on this lens.

The Tamron 90mm is also a good portrait length on APS-C for head shots as it is the same as 135mm on full frame - the traditional head shot lens focal lenght.

Many thanks for your comments Tom. I think i'll go for the Tamron 90mm.

Just posted some images in another forum as the link will take you below. This is a perfect all round lens. I shoot portraits, food and still do macro work. excellent focal length on APS-C sensors.

see some images here:
http://www.alphamountworld.com/forums/photo-critique-forum/food-shoot-critiques-welcomed/2010-7/5987#comment-31081