Tokina 100mm vs Tamron 90mm 2.8

Hi

I didn't wanted to post this as it is a rather reiterating thread but I just cant decide. Both lenses are shoulder to shoulder in the reviews. I though I needed to handle the lenses myself to decide and went to the store. I was able to shoot with the tamron but not the tokina. I only could hold the tokina in my hand, feeling the build quality. Not so much difference between the 2 at first sight. The Tokina is a bit heavier.

I was surprise at how close the Tamron was from the focus point... like 6-7cm because of the extended lens. Not much distance to work...

Anyone here got experience with both without being biased??

They are exactly same price here. That's part of the problem.

Thanks!

I only have the Tamron lens, so I can't give any opinions on which is better. However, in another thread, you said you already have the 85mm prime. Would the Tokina be slightly better for your use as you can get more variety in focal lengths? (that is, assuming that both lenses optics are similar)

Edit: I would also like to add that I am having great difficulty keeping a steady hand when hand holding and taking macro shots. The longer the focal length is, the more evident it'll be, unless you use a flash/tripod since neither has IS.

Towards the bottom of the page at this link, there is a chart with the minimum working distances (MWD) provided. Hopefuly this helps.

I prefer a longer working distance, which is why I'm looking for a 180mm macro. I can't decide on just getting the Canon or wait for the Sigma OS.

I don't have either lens. However, the longer focal length would be more useful if you want to photograph bugs. Any decent macro lens will be sharp stopped down, where you will want to use it for macro photography.
The "better" lens will depend on how you want to use it and the purpose. If it is photos of flowers, either will do fine. You can even use a 50 or 35mm macro lens for flowers. If you are photographing jewelry, either lens will be good. Of the two you are considering, I'd go for the Tamron. I got the Canon 100f2.8 IS when the price wasn't very different than the others.
Take a look at the LensTip review of these lenses. If you want to use the macro lens for general photography along with macro, you may not be happy with reports of the clutch focusing system on The Tokina. I'd want to try it out before buying. I am not biased against Tokina - I have a Tokina 35f2.8 macro that I really like. However, I haven't used the 35 macro in anything other than AF, and the AF on it is accurate, if a bit slow.

@Tom0927: Yes I've go the 85mm 1.8 but I plan to use the new lens only for macro or near macro. Nothing can beat the focus speed of the 85mm 1.8 usm and I'll keep this one for portrait.

As for hand holding the macro, I also worry about that as I dont plan to bring a tripod on my trips. IS would be very useful however the Sigma is too expensive. (would rather put that money on the 70-300L!!) - The Tamrom/Tokina are low cost alternative.

@Jimewall: Thanks for the link. This is what I was talking about... I felt that the tamron was focusing way nearer than 11inches! More like 3 inches. It was on a Sony body... migh be that!

@artyH: I might go for the tamron. It have one advantage for me over the Tokina: The weight! Any weight you can save is good when you carry a bag full of lenses. I love to travel light.

I'll use the lens mainly for flowers close-up and fine textures and details I can find when I go on tourist trip here in Japan. Maybe an occasional bug when I see one but it's not a priority for me. I plan to use the lens handheld.

I had the Tokina for a little bit and loved it...extremely sharp/contrasty lens!

Earwax69 wrote in post #14723569
Hi

I didn't wanted to post this as it is a rather reiterating thread but I just cant decide. Both lenses are shoulder to shoulder in the reviews. I though I needed to handle the lenses myself to decide and went to the store. I was able to shoot with the tamron but not the tokina. I only could hold the tokina in my hand, feeling the build quality. Not so much difference between the 2 at first sight. The Tokina is a bit heavier.

I was surprise at how close the Tamron was from the focus point... like 6-7cm because of the extended lens. Not much distance to work...

Anyone here got experience with both without being biased??

They are exactly same price here. That's part of the problem.
Thanks!

the price is always "part of the problem" !

you will get plenty of great insect macro pics with any 1:1 macro lens including the 100mm and 90mm. (and 60mm and 50mm) and 180mm

XSi (450D)
Tamron 90mm 2.8 non-Di

Ok!! I went to read the reviews on B&H website and all the Tamron reviews are very positive while there's a bit more grumpiness on the Tokina reviews. I'll go with the Tamron. Can't really go wrong anyway!

thanks a lot!!

Earwax69 wrote in post #14727935
Ok!! I went to read the reviews on B&H website and all the Tamron reviews are very positive while there's a bit more grumpiness on the Tokina reviews. I'll go with the Tamron. Can't really go wrong anyway!

thanks a lot!!

Enjoy! Can't go wrong with the Tamron.