Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Should i save 300+ more to get canon 100mm macro rather then a tamron 90mm .

  1. #1

    Default Should i save 300+ more to get canon 100mm macro rather then a tamron 90mm .

    hi guys i am considering getting macro , i am interested in macro thus i am thinking whether i should spend more money in it , and yes i am a beginner.

  2. #2
    Moderator ortega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    23,686
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default Re: Should i save 300+ more to get canon 100mm macro rather then a tamron 90mm .

    if you have the money, why not?

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    4,195

    Default Re: Should i save 300+ more to get canon 100mm macro rather then a tamron 90mm .

    depends how steady your hands are. I would think the IS is useful for pple like me who have shaky hands. Also the 100L has weather sealing, so if the diff is $300, I would go for the 100L, if I am going to hike and shoot insects. But if you are going to be shooting product shots, it does not matter.
    Last edited by ManWearPants; 12th September 2010 at 03:57 PM.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Should i save 300+ more to get canon 100mm macro rather then a tamron 90mm .

    Quote Originally Posted by ManWearPants View Post
    depends how steady your hands are. I would think the IS is useful for pple like me who have shaky hands. Also the 100L has weather sealing, so if the diff is $300, I would go for the 100L, if I am going to hike and shoot insects. But if you are going to be shooting product shots, it does not matter.
    its not the is one is one is too expensive for me

  5. #5

    Default Re: Should i save 300+ more to get canon 100mm macro rather then a tamron 90mm .

    Quote Originally Posted by ManWearPants View Post
    depends how steady your hands are. I would think the IS is useful for pple like me who have shaky hands. Also the 100L has weather sealing, so if the diff is $300, I would go for the 100L, if I am going to hike and shoot insects. But if you are going to be shooting product shots, it does not matter.
    Quote Originally Posted by ortega View Post
    if you have the money, why not?
    actually i dont have the money , if i get the 100mm means i will take a longer time to get it cause i am saving up from my allowance

  6. #6
    Deregistered allenleonhart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,656
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Should i save 300+ more to get canon 100mm macro rather then a tamron 90mm .

    why not consider cheaper alternative such as raynox?

  7. #7
    Moderator ortega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    23,686
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default Re: Should i save 300+ more to get canon 100mm macro rather then a tamron 90mm .

    In that case the t90 is also a capable lens

  8. #8

    Default Re: Should i save 300+ more to get canon 100mm macro rather then a tamron 90mm .

    at 300 bucks more... i'll go for 100L... use it before, darn good piece of glass! you will appreciate the better build, better AF speed and IS.
    Playing with M43.

  9. #9

    Default Re: Should i save 300+ more to get canon 100mm macro rather then a tamron 90mm .

    Quote Originally Posted by Akatsuki View Post
    at 300 bucks more... i'll go for 100L... use it before, darn good piece of glass! you will appreciate the better build, better AF speed and IS.
    its the non L version

  10. #10

    Default Re: Should i save 300+ more to get canon 100mm macro rather then a tamron 90mm .

    Quote Originally Posted by ortega View Post
    In that case the t90 is also a capable lens
    ok man thanks man , i think i have decided to get tamron wish me luck on that one!

  11. #11

    Default Re: Should i save 300+ more to get canon 100mm macro rather then a tamron 90mm .

    the canon 100mm usm macro is a better choice if you shoot insects, as the lens does not extend as you focus, therefore you won't scare the insects away while focusing.

    The Tamron 90 is a great lens as well! depending on your budget, either lens will get you great images.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Ha Noi, Vietnam, Vietnam
    Posts
    646

    Default Re: Should i save 300+ more to get canon 100mm macro rather then a tamron 90mm .

    Are you sure you need 1:1 magnification? I shoot things that require higher level of magnification than normal lenses, but not true macro magnification, so I find extensive tubes useful and much cheaper (plus I can use my 50mm lens to shoot, which imo produces nicer images than cheaper macro lenses)

    If you must have true macro, and must decide between the Canon and the Tamron, do you know the all the differences between the two? Then it's easier to decide if $300 justifies it. But my general advise is to go as far as your budget can stretch
    Canon Kiss X3 BG-E5 | Canon 135 f2 | Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 | Sigma 50 f1.4 | 430EXII
    View my gallery

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    4,195

    Default Re: Should i save 300+ more to get canon 100mm macro rather then a tamron 90mm .

    Quote Originally Posted by williamhung View Post
    ok man thanks man , i think i have decided to get tamron wish me luck on that one!
    no need to wish you luck. There is nothing wrong with Tamron lenses. A lens in hand is better than 2 on the shelf. Just do it. I think Sigma also have good macro lenses.

  14. #14
    Moderator ortega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    23,686
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default Re: Should i save 300+ more to get canon 100mm macro rather then a tamron 90mm .

    this is a sample of what the T90 can do

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

  15. #15

    Default Re: Should i save 300+ more to get canon 100mm macro rather then a tamron 90mm .

    if the difference is $300, go for 100L
    if u need the lens urgent, go for tamron
    if u can wait, go for 100L
    if u seldom shoot macro, go for tamron

  16. #16

    Default Re: Should i save 300+ more to get canon 100mm macro rather then a tamron 90mm .

    Quote Originally Posted by juste_millieu View Post
    if the difference is $300, go for 100L
    if u need the lens urgent, go for tamron
    if u can wait, go for 100L
    if u seldom shoot macro, go for tamron
    Quote Originally Posted by ortega View Post
    this is a sample of what the T90 can do

    http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=199617
    Quote Originally Posted by ManWearPants View Post
    no need to wish you luck. There is nothing wrong with Tamron lenses. A lens in hand is better than 2 on the shelf. Just do it. I think Sigma also have good macro lenses.
    Hey all u sexy people , thanks alot! its not a 100L its just the 100mm one. and thanks for the sample it looks quite awesome! is there any portrait field test u did with it? and thanks man wear pants , i wear pants too and yes! nth is wrong with tamron lens i am just afraid cause this would be the first lens i am buying in my entire life . i am excited!

  17. #17
    Senior Member NovJoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    ~Sunny Little Island~
    Posts
    5,651

    Default Re: Should i save 300+ more to get canon 100mm macro rather then a tamron 90mm .

    The tamron SP90 Di Macro Lens is a very good piece of glass that produces sharp images. Only thing I don't like is the extension of the lens when focusing towards 1:1.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •