Anything better than a Tamron 90 Macro for similar money?

ecowarrior · March 28, 2010

Hi all, have been lurking for some time, particularly in the Macro area, but this is my first post.

I'm wanting to get into macro photography - bugs, flowers, plus I'm hoping to use the lens for portrait stuff as well.

Everything I've read suggests that for the money, the Tamron 90mm gives superb results, and I'm kind of happy enough that I'm about ready to throw the readies down on one, but...

Are there any comparable lenses out there I should consider? The Nikkor 60mm Micro seems to be comparable for price, probably better build quality, but is it too short for bug-photos? I notice that LordV and others on here recommend the Canon MPE-65 as being the 'king of macro lenses' (no good for me as I've got a Nikon D200). If that's a short lens, but they are able to get the sort of excellent results that I see them posting, then is the Nikkor 60mm Micro REALLY too short? If not, is it's quality comparable to the Tamron?

Also, my once concern about the Tamron 90 is the amount it physically extends as you focus it. I'm worried that as I focus I'll wack the poor bug on the nose with the front lens!!!

Oh, the other thing I want is good Bokeh which suggests I want a longer focal length than 60mm?

My budget probably can't go much over £350ish (UK GBP) but am happy to buy secondhand for a better lens. Advice/recommendations appreciated.

ecowarrior · March 28, 2010

Actually I might be answering my own question here. Have just spotted a 105mm f/2.8 AF Micro-Nikkor for about £350. It's not the newer 'D' model, and it's not got the fancy VR, hence it's a cheaper. Would that be a good alternative?

angevin1 · March 28, 2010

I can personally vouch for the Sigma macros' the 105 and 150mm are superb~

craig_d · March 29, 2010

ecowarrior wrote:

Everything I've read suggests that for the money, the Tamron 90mm gives superb results, and I'm kind of happy enough that I'm about ready to throw the readies down on one, but...

Are there any comparable lenses out there I should consider?

Sigma and Tokina both have true 1:1 f/2.8 macro lenses right around 100mm at similar prices. I think they're both available for Nikon. Either of them, or the Tamron, will probably do just fine.

The Nikkor 60mm Micro seems to be comparable for price, probably better build quality, but is it too short for bug-photos? I notice that LordV and others on here recommend the Canon MPE-65 as being the 'king of macro lenses' (no good for me as I've got a Nikon D200). If that's a short lens, but they are able to get the sort of excellent results that I see them posting, then is the Nikkor 60mm Micro REALLY too short?

My guess from what you wrote is that you don't really understand what the Canon MP-E 65 is. It's not an ordinary macro lens, it's a specialty super-macro lens with a maximum magnification of 5:1. It's not at all comparable to the Nikkor 60mm macro, nor to Canon's own EF-S 60mm macro. Unfortunately, Nikon has nothing comparable to the MP-E 65.

Personally, I prefer the longest focal length I can get for macro lenses, because the longer focal length lets you shoot from farther away and it blurs the background more (because a narrower angle of view means a smaller area of background gets spread over the frame).

Also, my once concern about the Tamron 90 is the amount it physically extends as you focus it. I'm worried that as I focus I'll wack the poor bug on the nose with the front lens!!!

I think most true 1:1 macro lenses (aside from Canon's) physically extend by similar amounts. It's just something to keep in mind while framing and focusing.

Oh, the other thing I want is good Bokeh which suggests I want a longer focal length than 60mm?

It's not exactly bokeh, it's just, as I said above, that the background is more blurry because there's less of it to spread over the frame. Bokeh, properly speaking, is how out-of-focus points of light (such as spectral highlights) look.

ecowarrior · March 29, 2010

Can't deny that about the Canon MP-E 65 - just did a bit more investigation on it, I see what you mean. Looking at the results people get from it, it's the sort of thing that would 'make a boy switch'!!! (but only from Nikon to Canon if you see what I mean!!).

Whatever I go for, I got the green light from the wife last night (always a tricky one) and will post my shots up as and when I get the lens and get some results!

Cheers guys.

engrmariano · March 29, 2010

you can just add ETs if 1:1 is not enough.

craig_d · March 29, 2010

engrmariano wrote:

you can just add ETs if 1:1 is not enough.

To a point, sure, but I don't think you're going to get 5:1 out of a 1:1 macro lens just by adding extension tubes.

ecowarrior · March 30, 2010

I've kind of worked this all through in my mind and have decided to bide my time and save to afford the more modern 105 VR. On it's own it probably won't get the sort of in-your-face bug shots but there are other types of macro photography that I also want to do - perhaps even more so. Plus, the VR will come into play when I use it as a portrait lens.

A set of extension tubes and perhaps even a x2 extender might help to give me closer detail but one thing at a time.

Overfocused · July 17, 2010

ecowarrior wrote: »

I've kind of worked this all through in my mind and have decided to bide my time and save to afford the more modern 105 VR. On it's own it probably won't get the sort of in-your-face bug shots but there are other types of macro photography that I also want to do - perhaps even more so. Plus, the VR will come into play when I use it as a portrait lens.

A set of extension tubes and perhaps even a x2 extender might help to give me closer detail but one thing at a time.

Extension tubes on an existing macro would work... you can get 'em for 5 or 10 bucks. However, focal length has nothing to do with the base magnification factor of a lens until you add tubes. It affects the bokeh, background compression, and working distance. Lenses exist at 180MM, 100mm, 90mm, 65mm, 60mm and probably other focal lengths I haven't seen all at 1x magnification. The difference is a short focal length macro will *appear* to have more depth of field because it won't have the compression a telephoto lens applies to it. So, if you find yourself wanting to include more of a subject's surroundings, get a shorter length macro. If not, go long. Either way though, it will be 1x.

Manfr3d · July 23, 2010

Sigma 105mm .. much nicher build (metal, yummy!)

Art Scott · July 23, 2010

Manfr3d wrote: »

Sigma 105mm .. much nicher build (metal, yummy!)

I second this one!!!!!

Overfocused · July 23, 2010

I'm really not sure why the first time I responded to your article, I didn't just give you this link. Here's the best place to find your answers: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-90mm-f-2.8-Di-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

This is the exact question I had in my head when considering whether the Canon 100MM was the best option for me vs the 105mm and 90mm. The Sigma has significantly less contrast and saturation but I'd still read the whole article

Manfr3d · July 24, 2010

Just to throw in one more variable ... the Sigma 70mm f/2.8 EX Macro 1:1 is
da bomb! Yes, it is shorter than the Tamron but opticaly probably the best
macro lens Sigma makes (closely followed by the Sigma 150mm). It has the
same rugged build quality as the Sigma 105mm and is also a full frame lens
(not sure if that matters to you).

You can read some of the raveing reviews here:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=317&sort=4&cat=38&page=1

nightowlcat · July 24, 2010

For bugs, you're going to need some distance as to not scare them away.

Sigma 150mm f2.8 gets rave reviews

If you're not averse to manual focus for macro and portraits, try the Nikon 200 f4 AIS, find it used either in the Flea Market here, or other forums' markets.

(Both are on my wish list)

Manfr3d · July 24, 2010

I believe the 150 is out of his price range.

Anything better than a Tamron 90 Macro for similar money?

Comments