Canon 60mm or Tamron 90mm which one to go for ?

coolnipu

Hi All,
I am planning to buy a macro lens and my budget is not too high. Now I am considering canon 60mm and Tamron 90mm. I read many reviews and it seems a tie to me. So can someone please suggest which one will be the right choice? Though I have a tripod but I am planning for hand held photography. And also I am planning to take pictures of butterflies and other insects as well. So if you consider the IS factor, sharpness, length of the lens, weight then which one will you recommend?

Thanks a lot for your time.

ziggy53

Neither lens has IS so that's not a consideration here.

Normally, I suggest a longer focal length and around 90-100mm seems to be a very good length for utility versus cost. Unfortunately, the front element of the Tamron AF 90mm f/2.8 Di SP is recessed, making it around the same working distance from the front of the lens to the subject for either of these two lenses.

The Tamron has been around for a very long time, in one form or another, so it's much easier to find in a used condition, and all of the autofocus versions for Canon are good. The autofocus is pretty slow, but I don't use the autofocus very much on any macro or close focus lens anyway.

The Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM has great image quality and the ring USM AF motor should be faster and, potentially, more accurate to focus. The Canon lens is an EF-S mount so it will not fit on a Canon FF body, if that's a consideration.

The Tamron is very nice as a head shot and head-and-shoulders portrait lens on a Canon crop camera, and I use it for stitched panoramas too as it's very well corrected for rectilinear distortion.

It's actually pretty hard to find a bad "true" macro lens so you really won't go wrong with either of these in a macro situation.

Woodsman

I have the Tamron SP 90 (Nikon mount though) and I love it... it's tack sharp and has great color rendition. I think the longer 90mm focal length is a plus because it enables you to get a little further away from your subject and reduces the likelihood of having your own shadow appear in the shot(!) It's also a nice focal length for head shots, as Ziggy53 pointed out, and the bokeh is quite pleasant. I agree, the autofocus isn't very fast, and it tends to "hunt" for focus at times... but that said, you'll probably want to use manual focus for your macro shots anyway. There's a "Limit" switch that reduces the autofocus hunting issues, but I rarely use it since I don't find that it's a huge problem. I don't have any experience with the Canon 60mm lens, but I can vouch for the image quality of the Tammy. One other factor to consider (at least it was for me) is that the SP 90 is one of Tamron's "Di"-class lenses, which means it'll work fine on a full frame camera if I decide to upgrade from my crop sensor camera in the future.

Here's a sample of one of my bug shots taken with the Tamron lens: http://woodsman.smugmug.com/DailyPhotos/Daily-Photos-2012/20840528_c3G69Z#!i=2033267744&k=fRCcdfp

Good luck!

Mike

Brett1000

coolnipu wrote: »

Hi All,
I am planning to buy a macro lens and my budget is not too high. Now I am considering canon 60mm and Tamron 90mm. I read many reviews and it seems a tie to me. So can someone please suggest which one will be the right choice? Though I have a tripod but I am planning for hand held photography. And also I am planning to take pictures of butterflies and other insects as well. So if you consider the IS factor, sharpness, length of the lens, weight then which one will you recommend?

Thanks a lot for your time.

For butterflies and insects both would work fine, the Tamron 90mm 2.8 macro might be more useful if you also use it for portraits

Tommyboy

I never, ever recommend a non-OEM lens. Apparently there are some good ones—even great ones—out there, but I always shoot OEM. Always have.

In the distant past, I worked in camera stores. I has access to everything. I tried lots of aftermarket lenses. Some of them were really, really good, but to my eye, never measured up the the OEM lenses. Purely subjective judging, decidedly non-scientific, and as acknowledged, more than 20 years ago.

Having said all that, if the choice is between the OEM 50 and the Tamron 90, I'd get the Tamron.

Brett1000

Tommyboy wrote: »

I never, ever recommend a non-OEM lens.

I always shoot OEM. Always have.
Purely subjective judging, decidedly non-scientific, and as acknowledged, more than 20 years ago.

things have changed in the last 20 years !
there are many good (and better! ) non-OEM choices

but Canon really loves you !

paddler4

Check out this review. Because the Tamron extends when focused, the minimum working distance is actually only 9mm longer than that of the EF-S 60mm, which negates much of the value of the longer focal length for shooting bugs.

I do more macro than anything else and use two lenses, the EF-S 60 and one of the EF 100s. If you are interested in bugs, I would strongly recommend the 100mm focal length, as it gives you about 2.5 inches greater minimum working disatance. The non-L version, which is optically very close to the L version, has been around a long time, so you can probably find a used one. 60mm can be used for bugs (I'll post one below), but it is harder, and you will get fewer keepers.

To my knowledge, the only macro lens with IS that actually helps at macro distances (correcting for motion parallel to the sensor) is the EF 100mm L, which I have. It's a wonderful lens, but I would not suggest it for a newbie to macro because it is so expensive. It only adds about 1.5 stops anyway at very close distances. You might look into a cheap monopod to help stabilize the camera when doing handheld macro.

EF-S 60mm, 50D:

pathfinder

I own several macro lenses, including the Canon 50, the Canon 100, the Sigma 150, and the Tamron 180mm. I used the Tamron 90 SP for years on Olympus OM mount, and it was quite sharp.

If your goal is to shoot butterflies, hands down, you want the 180 focal length. OR you can use an extension tube and a 200 or 300mm prime.

The longer stand off distance of the 180 macro ( whether Tamron, Canon, or Sigma ) lets you shoot without disturbing the butterflies nearly as much. You can use extension tubes with the 180 macros as well.

One downside of using a 200 prime with an extension tube, is that you cannot pull back from near distances because the lens will no longer focus to infinity or even 5 feet, whereas the 180 macro lenses WILL focus to infinity just fine. A bit slowly, but will focus all the way to infinity.

Like Ziggy said, much of macro focusing is fore and aft refinement by the shooter, anyway. The 100 macros do tend to AF faster than the longer lenses, but you must get closer, and insects that fly, may choose to depart.

Also longer stand off with the 180 macros gives more room for accessory flashes and soft box diffusers.

I have a few macro shots from 2006 with the 180 Tamron, and other lenses, here