Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM vs Tamron SP Autofocus 90mm f/2.8 DI Macro Lens

[yehosaphat]

Which of the above lens do you prefer for your Macro Photography and why please?

[jimbok]

From a magazine I read, the Canon autofocus is better than the Tamron because Canon features the internal focusing USM, and the built is better on Canon. Well, if there is budget contrain, Canon one is about $987 and Tamron around $560.

Can't comment on the quality though, as I have not tried these lens before.

[yehosaphat]

Question is always... is the built, quality, AF, USM, etc in the Canon lens justifiable for the $400 difference?!

[mpenza]

buy it cheaper loh. used ones were going for $700++.

[solarii]

Originally Posted by yehosaphat Question is always... is the built, quality, AF, USM, etc in the Canon lens justifiable for the $400 difference?!

As with all "luxury" and "high-end" items, as your approach the top of the curve, you'll have to pay a lot more for a small improvement in overall quality, as opposed to the mid range were quality improves a lot more for a smaller increase in price.

Mathematically, you can't justify. But in real terms, if you want it, just buy it.

[Denosha]

You'll miss the FTM, fast/accurate focusing and most importantly, internal focusing. Both the Tamron and Sigma extend when focusing. The Canon stays the same length. I also have the Sigma 180mm and even though that has HSM, the AF is still far slower and less accurate (hunts A LOT) than the USM on the 100mm macro.

[yehosaphat]

Thanks for all yr feedback. No vote for the sigma lens?

Anyone else owned the 2 lens before and care to comment?

[mpenza]

btw, I mainly use the 100mm macro USM for portraits and events (fashion runway shows) and the fast AF comes in very useful. for macro shots, fast AF might not be necessary because you'll likely want to use manual focus to ensure the focus is spot on.

[Garion]

Its a very close fight between the Canon and the Tamron for me, both are excellent optically, but I suspect the Tamron having the slight edge over Canon. The T-90 is one heck of a sharp lens. Many regulars in Macro subforums in CS are using this lens, go check it out. Testimony to its outstanding image quality. Buildwise Canon wins out. Its manual focus ring is a joy to use.

Verdict? Image quality counts for me, and at ~$560 for the T-90mm over ~$950 for Canon 100mm Macro, the choice is clear. Save your $$$ and get the T-90mm, same if not better optical performance than the Canon, for just over half the price of the Canon.

Quote: for macro shots, fast AF might not be necessary because you'll likely want to use manual focus to ensure the focus is spot on.

Precisely. Most if not all macro lenses used in close range have relatively slow AF, including the Canon. For macro work MF is preferred generally.

[jeryltan]

Why no Tokina? Anyway, I have the Tokina 100mm Macro, if not I'll go for the Canon..

Originally Posted by yehosaphat Which of the above lens do you prefer for your Macro Photography and why please?

[yehosaphat]

yup... heard much stories of the T-90 being so close to canon equivalent... however poll results seem otherwise

[thw]

Optically, Tamron is the best. But the lens extends when focusing which shortens the effective working distance. For macro AF, Tamron is slow but accurate.

I love the FTM and USM on the Canon.

There are many excellent photos taken with the Sigma 105.

Tokina is new but from what I hear, very good too.

Tried the Sigma 150 f/2.8 too. Excellent lens but heavy. If you don't mind the weight, it's great.

[dEthANGeL]

Tamron:

1. Value for money
2. Field tested proven results

[jcho]

Here is the review for both lens

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/can-tam-macro/

[mpenza]

Originally Posted by yehosaphat yup... heard much stories of the T-90 being so close to canon equivalent... however poll results seem otherwise

It's the other qualities (non-optical like fast USM motor, non-extending lens, etc) which make Canon the choice of more people.

[Garion]

Originally Posted by Garion Many regulars in Macro subforums in CS are using this lens, go check it out. Testimony to its outstanding image quality.

As they say the proof is in the pudding. All the following shots were taken using the Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro.

http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=199617

http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=198724

http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=174174

http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=159950

melvynyeo's outstanding shots w/ Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro and 350D
http://forums.clubsnap.org/search.php?searchid=2959219

[Garion]

Originally Posted by mpenza It's the other qualities (non-optical like fast USM motor, non-extending lens, etc) which make Canon the choice of more people.

BUT...as far as value for money goes...Tamron clearly wins out. The money saved can be put to other good uses. Like investing in a good external flash for e.g.

[Simon4rings]

Putting macro aside, what if the comparison instead is between the Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 and the Canon 85mm f/1.8. The price is almost the same for these 2.

I'm trying to decide between a longer prime and a telezoom.

[mpenza]

Originally Posted by Garion BUT...as far as value for money goes...Tamron clearly wins out. The money saved can be put to other good uses. Like investing in a good external flash for e.g.

True I need the range for non-macro work and hence, Canon's a better choice If I'm getting the lens mainly/purely for macro, Tamron would be my choice too (it's the lightest too among the 3).

Another good lens to consider would be a used Canon 100mm macro f/2.8 (i.e without USM). It's also a very sharp lens and appears once a while in B&S (I got one before) at around the same price as a used Tamron.

[mpenza]

Originally Posted by Simon4rings Putting macro aside, what if the comparison instead is between the Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 and the Canon 85mm f/1.8. The price is almost the same for these 2. I'm trying to decide between a longer prime and a telezoom.

I wanted a single lens to have both macro and fast focussing capabilities (like the 85/1.8) and hence went for the Canon 100mm macro USM (sacrificing a bit in terms of f-stops vs the 85/1.8).