Tamron 180mm Macro

[morehtml]

I've searched the forum and I can't find much out about it. Looking at either the canon 100mm Macro or the Tamron 180mm Macro. Which is better for anyone that has knowledge of both?

[microman23]

I am looking at the same decision... any thoughts?

[Greg_C]

I can't comment on the IQ of these because I don't have the Tamron 180. I do have a Canon 100 and a Canon 180 and will say the longer lenses are a little harder to handhold, I find I use a tripod more and more with my 180. Hand holding the 180's is def. doable though.

The longer Macros are better suited to larger insects and larger flowers, ie use the additional working distance to your advantage.

[gasrocks]

Why not also consider the Sigma 180? What I've read says that the Tamron is the sharpest by a hair, the Canon is built best but the Sigma is the best overall value.

[scas]

sigma 150s better than the 180.

[gasrocks]

I have both the Sigma 150 and 180 macros. Hard to say which is better.

[scas]

so if you had to make a choice -which is better.

[a521]

I just went to a seminar at Roberts here in Indy and the speaker was well known for his macro work. He said the Tamron 180mm is the best macro lens on the market and that's the only one he uses. I think he might be a Tamron rep, so I was skeptical, but his work was amazing. I'll go look for his website now..

[LightRules]

All depends on what FL and working distance you need/prefer. They're all rippers. [That said, I like the 150 EX the best of them all.]

[scas]

ignoring the kudos of the canon and the price -i agree

[scas]

..:)

[silvex]

Try this review at photozone.de (http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/284-tamron-af-180mm-f35-sp-di-ld-if-macro-canon-review--test-report?start=1)

[argyle]

With the Canon 100 and Tamron 180, you're kinda comparing apples to oranges considering the big difference in focal length. I can't speak for the Tamron, but the Canon 100 is an amazingly sharp lens that is built very well and is fairly compact. I recently sold mine and bought a Sigma 150 EX, mainly for the extra reach. The Sigma is every bit as sharp as the Canon, and with an adapter ring I'm still able to use my twin-lite flash. Like Lightrules mentioned, it all depends on what focal length you'll need. If you plan on taking pics of skittish insects, then a longer FL would be better (and most likely a tripod).

[tmonatr]

I had the Canon (unfortunately, I had to sell it:(), but it was VERY sharp. It would also be more versatile, as it can be used as a very good portrait lens outside.

[Lester Wareham]

You could read this http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nnplus.de%2Fmacro%2FM acro100.html&langpair=de%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

The only review at life size, the photozone type tests are probably not that relevant at closeup distances.

[silvex]

You could read this http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nnplus.de%2Fmacro%2FM acro100.html&langpair=de%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

The only review at life size, the photozone type tests are probably not that relevant at closeup distances.

Excellent link Lester! It seems like the tamron 90 is the best macro lens with the canon 200 2nd.

[formula4speed]

I've been quite happy with my Tamron 180 macro, not as robust as my L lenses, but it's lighter weight makes it a bit easier to shoot hand held. Image quality seems to be very good with almost all macro lenses. I will say that the autofocus makes my 85L seem lightning fast, but I only use manual focus for macro so no big deal for me. The Canon 100mm would probably be better for things other than macro if for no other reason than it has USM.