Macro:Canon 100mm (non-L) VS.Tamron 90mm...wich one?

....and why? (pros and cons of your opinion,please!)
These two are available at near the same price (well,at least where I live) but unfortunately I cannot test them both in the same conditions (environment).On the other hand,I have (borrowed) the Canon's 100L lens and used heavily two weeks by now....great glass,VERY capable,but it's way over of my financial possibilities.
So...one of the two "cheapers" should make the honors.Working conditions:in-house,light tent,mainly small-to-large items and camera on tripod w/wired shutter,eventual nature photography in "normal" weather conditions (hence,no need for a "L").No portraits (mostly using 50 1.4 for that).
TIA!
Regards,

If they're near the same price, the canon no question.

The advantage of the tamron is essentially, price. Thats it.

The canon has better build, faster AF, and internal focusing.

IQ wise, all macro lenses nowadays are pretty much the same. You'll get the same results from any of them as you would from the L, so don't bother feeling bad about not being able to afford it. The L is only useful if you need IS and weather sealing. Its bokeh is slightly smoother as it has 9 aperture blades versus 8 in the non-L, but thats pretty much it.

Apparantly, the Tamron is sharper, but only by such a minute amount that you probably need to pixelpeep at 200% or 400% to see the difference. And maybe it is a teensy bit sharper in the corners wide open.

The Canon EF 100 Macro, non-L is about as sharp as the 100L Macro, just that the latter has slightly better bokeh and maybe a little more microcontrast.

Roughly speaking, however, they all perform very similarly, sharpness wise, because they are all world class macro optics.

The main distinction is in operation, however. The Canons have IF (Internal Focusing), the Tamron has normal rack focusing. IF is very fast compared to rack focusing. However, whereas the FL of the Tamron is constant, IF means that at closer focusing distances the FL actually shortens. I did do the calculations a while ago, and verified that against the lens when I still had it, and if I remember correctly, the FL goes down to about 72 or 74 mm at 1:1.

However, this is not a real problem, because working distance is still 144 mm or thereabouts (distance from front lens to subject). The WD of the Tamron at 1:1 is way shorter, more in the region of 70 mm, which is even less than that of the EF-S 60 mm Macro (also IF). Add a lens hood, and if you want to use artifical lighting with the Tamron, you have a problem.

The Tamron lends itself more for static macros, whereas the Canon 100s will do both static and dynamic (handheld) macros very well, because of this. Personally, I even shoot dynamically with the MP-E 65 .

IOW, if you want the best, probably about 2 lp/mm better in the centre at actual image level, and slightly better in the corners at full aperture, don't mind the (very) slow AF, and the enormous lens extension when at 1:1 and the accompanying short WD, go for the Tamron.

If you prefer convenience, still excellent performance, fast AF, especially for a macro lens, a long WD, and don't mind stopping down one stop to get the best performance in the (extreme) corners, and don't mind a little FL-shortening at 1:1, and want to make sure the lens works with the next new Canon body too, go for the Canon.

HTH, kind regards, Wim

Sirrith wrote in post #13375847
If they're near the same price, the canon no question.

The advantage of the tamron is essentially, price. Thats it.

The canon has better build, faster AF, and internal focusing.

IQ wise, all macro lenses nowadays are pretty much the same. You'll get the same results from any of them as you would from the L, so don't bother feeling bad about not being able to afford it. The L is only useful if you need IS and weather sealing. Its bokeh is slightly smoother as it has 9 aperture blades versus 8 in the non-L, but thats pretty much it.

I gotta agree with this

Canon's! I sold mines and miss it so I bought a Canon 60mm Macro to get over it. QQ

Save longer and get the 100 L. Is that an option?

CactusJuice wrote in post #13377092
Save longer and get the 100 L. Is that an option?

Yep,it might be THE option as long as I saw what it does....insane precision.
On the other hand,the other variable might be an avalanche of work to do with macro,in wich situation I cannot hassle my friend who owns the L I have worked with...
Unfortunately,it's the only 100L I know of in my area (I live in a small town)...hmmmm guys,the "save longer" sounds appealing....time will tell!
Thanks to everybody!
Regards,

J.Doe wrote in post #13377513
Yep,it might be THE option as long as I saw what it does....insane precision.
On the other hand,the other variable might be an avalanche of work to do with macro,in wich situation I cannot hassle my friend who owns the L I have worked with...
Unfortunately,it's the only 100L I know of in my area (I live in a small town)...hmmmm guys,the "save longer" sounds appealing....time will tell!
Thanks to everybody!
Regards,

If you are willing to spend that much for for IS and weather sealing, then its the best option. But just a note; you will get the same image quality from the non-L lenses, and save a big wad of cash by doing so.

J.Doe wrote in post #13375705
....and why? (pros and cons of your opinion,please!)
These two are available at near the same price (well,at least where I live) but unfortunately I cannot test them both in the same conditions (environment).On the other hand,I have (borrowed) the Canon's 100L lens and used heavily two weeks by now....great glass,VERY capable,but it's way over of my financial possibilities.
So...one of the two "cheapers" should make the honors.Working conditions:in-house,light tent,mainly small-to-large items and camera on tripod w/wired shutter,eventual nature photography in "normal" weather conditions (hence,no need for a "L").No portraits (mostly using 50 1.4 for that).
TIA!
Regards,

I am going to throw another contender in the mix, and my reasoning for doing so: Sigma 150/2.8 DG HSM macro (non-OS).

MWD for the Sigma is nearly 194mm, and it is internal focus. IQ, color and contrast for macro is top notch, and it's very sharp from WO. Comes with a tripod collar, too. Can be had for as little as $500 (what I paid for mine).

I have also owned a Canon 100/2.8, and I prefer the Sigma over the Canon for macro work alone.

However, I did sell the Sigma because I was not pleased with it's medium telephoto ability (which was half the reason I bought the lens in the first place). As a macro lens, the Sigma 150 is just plain incredible.


Jason C