Opinion on a macro lens please

OK i am going to buy a dedicated macro lens in a few weeks when i get paid, but there are so many out there I'm not sure which way to go. i have been looking around and have narrowed it down to two lenses 1st is the Tamron SP AF 180mm F/3.5 Di LD (IF) Macro for Canon, 2nd is Canon EF 100mm F/2.8 Macro USM. If anyone has any info or experience with either lens please let me know which one you prefer and why.

The choice between those two will just come down to how much working distance you require. A more like for like lens to the 100mm Canon would be the 90mm macro lens from Tamron. I would say if this is your first real experience of macro you'd be much better off with a 90mm/100mm/105mm lens than a 180mm. I have the 100mm Canon and find it excellent, great lens and very sharp. A lot of people have either the 90mm Tamron or the 105mm Sigma macro lenses too, and it seems that you can go too far wrong with any of those lenses.

Hi RonS. I opted for the sigma 105 macro and believe this is a great lens for macro. You can also compare lens performances on DxOMark. Link below

http://www.dxomark.com …ses/Compare-Camera-Lenses

thank you for the advice, i have decided to go with the canon 100mm

Good choice on the Canon 100mm! That was my first macro lens and I still love it.

I have both Canon 100mm and the 90mm macro lens from Tamron. I bought the Tamron first. The Canon is very sharp and has a much better build quality than the Tamron. The Tamron "extends" quite far when focusing. I now use the Canon in favor of the Tamron almost all the time. If I had my time again I would bypass the Tamron and go strait for the Canon.

I don't know why people keep saying that the Canon 100L is sharper. Do you actually compare images from both lenses (on same camera, same setting) side by side and confirms that?

IQ wise:

Tamron SP90 gets 4 star on photozone.net

Canon 100L, 3.5 stars.
http://www.photozone.d​e …st-report--review?start=2
http://www.photozone.d​e …canon_100_28is_​5d?start=2