Tamron 90mm macro vs. Canon 100mm macro

[nynavey]

I'm in the market for a macro lens. I'm also looking for opinions on which of these is the better lens. Anyone have experience with both and done a comparison?

If I decide I just can't wait for mail order, and patronize my local camera store instead, I'm faced with this dilemma:

They have the Tamron 90mm for $400 after the manufacturer's rebate, but for only $56 more I could get the Canon 100mm (after rebate). The Tamron would be a bit cheaper if I ordered it online, but I keep thinking I could have a macro lens in my hot little hands by the weekend if I buy locally.

I've also considered the Sigma 105mm, but the camera shop doesn't carry Sigma at all. I've read the threads on it, but I'm curious how any of these lenses would match up to the others. Your opinions and advice are welcome. :)

[liquefied]

I can't offer any advice but I'm currently in the same predicament. I'm torn between the Tamron 90, Sigma 105, Tokina 100 and Canon 100. I'm leaning toward the Canon even though it costs more because it has USM for full time manual focus which is pretty important for me especially in a macro situation.

[strobe monkey]

I used to own the tamron 90. It has a protruding front element and noisy autofocus while the Canon hasn't. These were the 2 reasons why I changed to Canon. Build quality is also better on the canon. Image sharpness, I can't comment as I never tested them side by side but I love my EF100. From what I read from reviews, the Tamron is as sharp as the Canon. Bear in mind that the EF100 doesn't come with a lens hood but you can buy a cheap one from ebay which is as good.

[John_B]

nynavey,
I personally find the the Canon 100mm f/2.8 to be best of your choices. The Canon doesn't extend or retract when focusing on a subject, which I find is worth the cost difference :)

In this forum -=TOP TEN=- Which macro lens do you use? <-- click to see (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=160960) the Canon 100mm f/2.8 is the most used lens ;)

[jr_senator]

Canon's 100mm macro is as good as it gets. With internal focusing and MF over ride along with the fact that it is just a great lens, I choose the Canon macro. You will need to also purchase a hood. So, the cost difference is more than the $56 (and worth every penny).

[Tony-S]

I'm in the market for a macro lens. I'm also looking for opinions on which of these is the better lens. Anyone have experience with both and done a comparison?

Optically, the Canon, Tamron and Sigma are virtually identical. What you get with the Canon are internal focusing, internal diaphragm and USM focusing (which you won't use for macro, but will for "standard" photography). The hood is extra for the Canon, and included with the Sigma (threaded). I don't know about the others.

[nynavey]

Yes I've noticed the Canon was used the most in the macro vote, but I wondered if that was because there are loyal canon users (being this is a Canon forum!), or if it really does deserve the reputation it's got.

Great info here, exactly what I was looking for.

[Tony-S]

Yes I've noticed the Canon was used the most in the macro vote, but I wondered if that was because there are loyal canon users (being this is a Canon forum!), or if it really does deserve the reputation it's got.

Great info here, exactly what I was looking for.

It's sort of like Fords (Canon) vs. Porsche (Sigma). :)

[Urskog]

It's sort of like Fords (Canon) vs. Porsche (Sigma). :)
Ford isn't even playing in the same league as Porsche :(

[bbeck4x4]

I have the Tamron 90, I love it, the hood is a bayonet style not threaded, It takes very sharp photos, and the bokah is wonderful, I have also used it for portraits with great success. I have not tried the canon, the motor on the Tamron does make some noise, but it is not louder than the noise from the camera's shutter.

[form]

Protruding front element on the tamron 90? On the contrary it's recessed so deeply into the barrel that you almost certainly will never need to use the included lens hood to avoid flare.

[Performa01]

It’s always the same story.

Landscape and product photographers will often tell you that they don’t need AF, while sports and wildlife photographers get very unhappy if their AF (camera or lens) works less than perfect.
People using macro lenses for reproduction work will tell you that they don’t use AF, but there are also macro photographers that try to capture moving subjects, such as insects or even flowers in the wind, so to say the wildlife shooters in the realm of macro work.

On top of that, there might be some, that have never tried the Canon 100/2.8 USM, hence do not know how it feels to have a macro lens with an AF that actually works, even at the closest distances.

You will certainly not need One Shot AF for macro work, because the extremely shallow DOF makes manual focussing easy. And of course you can try to shoot moving subjects by manual focus, but you will get more keepers and miss less great opportunities if you have a fast and silent AF, that allows you to track the subject in AI-Servo mode and provides immediate manual override as soon as you release the AF button if needed. An internal focus system will help you not to chase away insects during focussing.

The Canon EF 100/2.8 macro USM gives you all that, whereas I found the AF of the Tamron to be slow and not at all reliable at close distances, even in One Shot, let alone AI-Servo.

Basically – as always - it depends what you intend to shoot. But a fast and super sharp lens in the 100mm range can be used for a lot more than just macros, and in this case a respectable AF will be welcome anyway. For the little prize difference you’ve mentioned, the choice would be a no-brainer for me…

[versedmb]

Great summary Performa.

[mrfourcows]

in my country, the tamron is about US$130 cheaper than the canon. and it was very hard for me to put in the extra dollars.. so i got one from the US and got it shipped to my sister!

but really, a macro lens is not one that i would use frequently. if i didn't get one from the US, i'd have bought the tamron locally. it does have a legendary status you know :cool:

[bbeck4x4]

a shot tonight with the Tamron 90

http://photos.planetbeck.com/photos/329536138_YuYu7-L.jpg

[nynavey]

Thanks everyone!

To liquified and others, I found a nice comparison review with images on these macros and the others here. (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-90mm-f-2.8-Di-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx)

[rang]

I used to own the tamron 90. It has a protruding front element and noisy autofocus while the Canon hasn't. These were the 2 reasons why I changed to Canon. Build quality is also better on the canon. Image sharpness, I can't comment as I never tested them side by side but I love my EF100. From what I read from reviews, the Tamron is as sharp as the Canon. Bear in mind that the EF100 doesn't come with a lens hood but you can buy a cheap one from ebay which is as good.

Protruding front element...on the Tammy 90 2.8 macro lens???

Mine doesn't ... in fact it is so far recessed the hood is way un-necessary.

And the IQ matches the Canon in every respect. Maybe yours is an older model of the Tammy as it's been around since dirt. The one I have is a year old or so and is the Di version (should be the same body and glass train just coated for APS sensors and distance to the sensor plane reflections and stuff but still usable for all Canon bodies.

Your right in that it isn't quiet. But for macro I've never heard any complaining from bugs or flowers or nails or just about any of my macro subjects. And most times I am manual focusing macro shots on rails with extension tubes added because the DOF gets very thin.

[strobe monkey]

Protruding front element...on the Tammy 90 2.8 macro lens???

Mine doesn't ... in fact it is so far recessed the hood is way un-necessary.

And the IQ matches the Canon in every respect. Maybe yours is an older model of the Tammy as it's been around since dirt. The one I have is a year old or so and is the Di version (should be the same body and glass train just coated for APS sensors and distance to the sensor plane reflections and stuff but still usable for all Canon bodies.

Your right in that it isn't quiet. But for macro I've never heard any complaining from bugs or flowers or nails or just about any of my macro subjects. And most times I am manual focusing macro shots on rails with extension tubes added because the DOF gets very thin.

Mine was the new version Di II LD. The protruding front element? What I meant with protruding front element is It extends a long way. Wrong choice of word there I guess. Look at the pictures on the link just above your post.
I never knew anyone who can communicate with bugs, flowers on snails, you have a talent:D. And its not them complaining, its me:lol:

[rang]

Mine was the new version Di II LD. The protruding front element? What I meant with protruding front element is It extends a long way. Wrong choice of word there I guess. Look at the pictures on the link just above your post.
I never knew anyone who can communicate with bugs, flowers on snails, you have a talent:D. And its not them complaining, its me:lol:

Ahhhh LOL...it's even funnier as most of the bugs I shoot...I refrigerate first. So if they ever whinned it would be a back from the dead horror show. :lol:

I getcha. Yup the Tammy is sort of an "ugly" lens and all but it works great and the shot of that bird is a testament for sure.