Macro lens recommendation. Pls advice.

[newmemberz]

I am a trully beginner in macro photography.
And I find that there are 2 well-known lens for macro which are
the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro and Tamron 90mm.

Do u guyz think it is worthed to get the 100mm with that kind of price?
Is the differences in quality is that great compared to tamron 90mm?

Coz, from what I know that tamron's price is almost half of the canon lens but also perform just on par with canon. or as good as canon?

Another thing.
I read reviews that Canon 100mm isn't really suitable for potraiture.
How about the tamron 90mm?

I would like to hear from both user....
Please enlighten me to make a wise decision with my investment.

[monsoon]

if u have enough money, buy 100/2.8 macro, it is better built, image quality a little better than sp90, but cost at least 1.5* sp90

[shendeerzi]

Canon 100mm Macro is a good buy ... can also take portraits too. If u really, really like Macro works and have the cash, you can consider Canon 180mm Macro ... damn solid but heavy ... ha
Edmund

[unseen]

I disagree about the image quality being better. I just went down yesterday to CP and tested both tamron 90mm and canon 100mm USM macro and TCW to test 100mm non USM macro.
Wide open, tamron is much much much sharper, followed by the non usm, lastly by the usm ver.
I was quite surprised, so gonna go back retest. Wondering if I tested a bad copy. I wouldn't say the built is that much better. Check out the Tokina 100mm, now that is called better built.

However, 100mm usm moves VERY fast from macro distances to infinity distances. The rest of the lenses drag their feet in comparison.

edit: Another thing I noticed: USM is rather slow as compared to the other USM lenses that I've tried. Comparing side by side, the 60mm usm macro snapped to focus while the 100mm usm strolled to focus.

[newmemberz]

wow2........

the review here seems to be contradictive.
Hmmm.... anyo other comments from the actual user of these 2 lenses?

[monsoon]

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/can-tam-macro/
check this, actually the difference is not as significant as u think

[unseen]

LOL mine is from actual photos with the 2 lenses.
Trust me.. I'm very surprised by image quality, wondering if it's a bad copy or my bad technique. LOL I never use tripod, only put camera flat on tabletop to take. Images from the old 100mm macro non usm i use to haf + the old 100mm macro non usm i tested @ tcw is definitely sharper, I'd say almost comparable with the tamron.
*but.. the non usm one got some problems auto-focusing at macro range.. both lenses I used b4 + tested hasn't got high hit rate.

[newmemberz]

Originally Posted by monsoon http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/can-tam-macro/ check this, actually the difference is not as significant as u think

Thanx for the link bro...

Both lenses is very comparable in image quality.
Well I think I would go for tamron instead.

[ray_stinger]

the tamron will extend the lens barrel when focusing, which may scared off insects making it difficult to capture them.

[Jack27]

Tamron 90mm

[JediForce4ever]

100mmf2.8 USM....no doubt about image quality.

[Snoweagle]

If u're willing to splurge more, then the 180mm f3.5L USM is the ultimate choice.

[shinken]

One thing for sure about Canon 100 vs Tamron 90 is that the AF speed is way faster for Canon 100, especially if you decide to use it for portraits or other non-macro applications. Much, much faster. Tamron is truly a dedicated macros lens, but the hunt is pretty slow if you are used to the fast focusing speed of USM lenses.

If you just want to venture into macro photography and see if it's your cup of tea, another alternative is using contraptions such as close-up filter and extension tubes. Both are versatile and good for those who can compromise a bit on sharpness, and want to know whether macro is good. The loss I made in selling my Tamron could have gone straight to my extension tubes. Sigh.

[Snoweagle]

I myself also do not own a macro lens so the best i can do for now is to use a close up filter on my 50mm. Even though the sharpness has gone down a bit, but i can still get very close results.

[Hoky]

Originally Posted by Snoweagle I myself also do not own a macro lens so the best i can do for now is to use a close up filter on my 50mm. Even though the sharpness has gone down a bit, but i can still get very close results.

Hi Snoweagle, what kind of close up filter are you using?
I've been advised to buy 250D (<70mm) and 500D (70-300mm) but they seem to be very expensive.

[Snoweagle]

Originally Posted by Hoky Hi Snoweagle, what kind of close up filter are you using? I've been advised to buy 250D (<70mm) and 500D (70-300mm) but they seem to be very expensive.

I don't use a Canon brand close up filter. I'm using a Hoya +4 close up, magnifies the image at a closeness of 1:3 or as close as 10cm away from your subject.

[DeSwitch]

Tamron 90 is good enugh for a beginer. Cant feel the dif in quality but its AF is slow or hunts a lot.

I bought one sometime back but still have not fully utilize it because of the festive seasons. Its a good buy cos Tamron have 3 years waranty. (1 +2 yr extended)

[shinken]

My set of extension tubes can go up to 1:1 magnification or even greater with extremely good results. Got it for less than $200 at TK photo. Use it with my 85 1.8 with very good results

[Snoweagle]

But extension tubes are too costly for me....saw one at TCW for $100+

[Ally]

I used my bro-in-law's 50mm f/2.5 Macro lens with close-up filters.. The lens is kinda old but still serves up quite good macros..