AGAIN! Another lens IQ comparrison request: Pentax 35 macro Ltd and Tamron 90 macro


wazzupku

New Member
Apr 24, 2010
218
0
0
#1
Hi,

I know, again another request from me hah

So, I will be able to get one of those lens. Please leave aside the price matter as I can get a 99% 35ltd for same price as 100% tamron 90 macro.

What I concern is the quality and the usage of those two lens. Which one is sharper? I will be using this new lens in macro, of course. But will also do product shooting in studio, as well some whole body portrait for my sister's fashion shop.

I did a little research and found out that 35ltd might be better in bokeh as they have 8 blades and it is very good in controlling flare. Also, it can be my lens to use in almost every situation.

However, 90 macro seem to blur the background better (focal length and aperture). Plastic build and only 7 blades.

So, here I am, looking for some samples test from you guys as well as your knowledge.

Thank you
 

pinholecam

Moderator
Staff member
Jul 23, 2007
10,951
90
48
#2
The 90mm is better for what you need to do with it.
However, the 35mm is more versatile as a walk around prime.
 

gummy73

New Member
Jan 9, 2010
958
0
0
44
#4
Both are good lenses, As for 35mm is a walk around lens. 90mm if u into insect macro or close up portrait. (but if u can save up alittle get the DFA 100mm macro) for better bokeh.
 

poseur

Senior Member
Jul 27, 2009
1,034
14
38
#6
personally i own the Tammy 90 and i love using it for portraits shots. On digital body is it about 135mm. The AF limiter on the body is very usefully quicker AF for portraits shots.
 

detritus

Senior Member
Sep 12, 2009
2,922
3
0
shootingbugs.blogspot.com
#7
18-55 kit lens with raynox 250. cheap and good. ;)

seriously, i'm not trying to be funny. mounted on a tripod, its perfectly functional for stacked product shots. its relatively cheap too.

u take out the raynox and u can use the 18-55 for portraits.

i'm not sure what kind of setup u'll be using for your full body portraits but u might find a zoom more versatile for portraits than a prime.
 

wazzupku

New Member
Apr 24, 2010
218
0
0
#8
18-55 kit lens with raynox 250. cheap and good. ;)

seriously, i'm not trying to be funny. mounted on a tripod, its perfectly functional for stacked product shots. its relatively cheap too.

u take out the raynox and u can use the 18-55 for portraits.

i'm not sure what kind of setup u'll be using for your full body portraits but u might find a zoom more versatile for portraits than a prime.
LMAO dentritus. This is exactly where I was! I was just about to buy it. I went to the store and test it out as well. but then the devil side of me tell me: hey, that 35ltd look and feel much better than your 50-200 with raynox 250.

So that's why I started to research on macro lenses and came up with 4 lens: pentax 35ltd, pentax 50 macro, tamron 60 and 90 macro. Since 60 macro isn't produced for pentax, and I already have a sharp 50 1.7, so I thought I need 35 or 90.

Now your really brought me back to re-think and doubting hehe.

But yea... I think I will need a macro lens sooner or later. What is left is to decide between 35mm and 90mm. I still don't have the answer :(
 

detritus

Senior Member
Sep 12, 2009
2,922
3
0
shootingbugs.blogspot.com
#9
good luck with that... macro lenses are fun... i have several but they're mostly old MF ones. great for macro but not so suitable for portraits :)

for shooting products, probably won't need to go to 1:1 magnification and u'll need the item to be well lit and sharp throughout. u'll probably need to focus-stack as depending on the size of the item and the level of magnification, u may not have enough DOF even if u step down massively. (e.g. if u place a bracelet on a table and take a close up from the front, the back of the bracelet will be blurred out)

i personally prefer a decent working distance so i would choose the 90. but 90 is very tight for indoor spaces if u need to take full body portraits. (e.g. if u're taking the pictures in the shop, then it really depends how large the shop-space is). portraits, i would prefer a zoom.

alternatively, some pple prefer to get up close and personal so a 35 or 50 suits them fine. no right or wrong, just personal preference. thats why macro players have more than 1 macro lens ;)

thats why sometimes, we need to know when its LBA talking cos if the lens doesn't meet your needs, then u're just wasting time and money. in your case, macro lens only solves part of the problem. still need technique and may need PP (focus stacking) to complete the equation :)
 

otc

Senior Member
Feb 8, 2006
2,730
17
38
www.flickr.com
#10
Hi,

I know, again another request from me hah

So, I will be able to get one of those lens. Please leave aside the price matter as I can get a 99% 35ltd for same price as 100% tamron 90 macro.

What I concern is the quality and the usage of those two lens. Which one is sharper? I will be using this new lens in macro, of course. But will also do product shooting in studio, as well some whole body portrait for my sister's fashion shop.

I did a little research and found out that 35ltd might be better in bokeh as they have 8 blades and it is very good in controlling flare. Also, it can be my lens to use in almost every situation.

However, 90 macro seem to blur the background better (focal length and aperture). Plastic build and only 7 blades.

So, here I am, looking for some samples test from you guys as well as your knowledge.

Thank you
Buy la, both macro lens. Two different minimum focal distance and both are great for macro. 35mm or 50mm is good for still life product shot but for fashion and portrait, 90 mm seems better. Both produces sharp images. 35mm for apc is good for walk around lens too but I have never own both of these before.

marcus
 

CorneliusK

Senior Member
Jan 23, 2010
790
0
16
#11
You don't REALLY need a macro lens for product shoot unless you are shooting small objects like watches, jewelry etc. What is the size of your product? Measure it and divide it by 16mm (width of APSC sensor) - that is the magnification ratio that you need.

E.g. A ring which is 16mm across - 16/16 = 1, hence you need a true 1:1 macro lens. This will allow you to focus close enough to fill up the entire width of your picture.

A handphone which is 160mm across = 160/16 = 10, hence you only need 1:10 magnification. Most lenses out there will allow you to focus close enough to fill the width of your picture with the phone.

However if you intend to do close ups of the phone - e.g. to showcase the details of the buttons then you may need greater magnification.

If are going to make use of the macro option often then I would suggest getting something longer. One of the main challenges of shooting macro is getting enough light on the subject - a short macro will make it very hard to shoot something without the camera blocking the light.
 

wazzupku

New Member
Apr 24, 2010
218
0
0
#12
Hi guys,

REALLY appreciate for the info and advices. After all the advices, this is what I got out:

1/ I don't really need a macro lens unless taking jewelry => raynox 250 can be a cheap replacement
2/ Tamron 90 will do its job better than 35 ltd, in this case - macro on everything including insects and bugs
3/ Tamron 90 will fit my style more in shooting macro and portrait, due to focal length and aperture. However, I do not always taking portrait and macro, so this will be a "sometimes" lens.
4/ Pentax, on other hand can be use as a walk around lens, and can be on my pentax body most of the time.

=> Tamron seems to be better a lens in its field: macro & portrait. But for the money to invest in, pentax seem to worth more as a walk around lens, and I will most likely spend more time on the pentax lens.

p/s: with tamron 90, what is the distance between the camera and the model to shoot full body portrait?
 

edutilos-

Senior Member
Dec 28, 2010
6,042
17
38
The Universe
www.facebook.com
#13
Hi,

I know, again another request from me hah

So, I will be able to get one of those lens. Please leave aside the price matter as I can get a 99% 35ltd for same price as 100% tamron 90 macro.

What I concern is the quality and the usage of those two lens. Which one is sharper? I will be using this new lens in macro, of course. But will also do product shooting in studio, as well some whole body portrait for my sister's fashion shop.

I did a little research and found out that 35ltd might be better in bokeh as they have 8 blades and it is very good in controlling flare. Also, it can be my lens to use in almost every situation.

However, 90 macro seem to blur the background better (focal length and aperture). Plastic build and only 7 blades.

So, here I am, looking for some samples test from you guys as well as your knowledge.

Thank you
The focal length is so different... I don't understand how you lump the two.

A good photograph has less to do with bokeh than with composition and concept. 35mm should be more versatile than 90mm.
 

edutilos-

Senior Member
Dec 28, 2010
6,042
17
38
The Universe
www.facebook.com
#14
Hi,

I know, again another request from me hah

So, I will be able to get one of those lens. Please leave aside the price matter as I can get a 99% 35ltd for same price as 100% tamron 90 macro.

What I concern is the quality and the usage of those two lens. Which one is sharper? I will be using this new lens in macro, of course. But will also do product shooting in studio, as well some whole body portrait for my sister's fashion shop.

I did a little research and found out that 35ltd might be better in bokeh as they have 8 blades and it is very good in controlling flare. Also, it can be my lens to use in almost every situation.

However, 90 macro seem to blur the background better (focal length and aperture). Plastic build and only 7 blades.

So, here I am, looking for some samples test from you guys as well as your knowledge.

Thank you
The focal length is so different... I don't understand how you lump the two.

A good photograph has less to do with bokeh than with composition and concept. 35mm should be more versatile than 90mm.
 

wazzupku

New Member
Apr 24, 2010
218
0
0
#15
The focal length is so different... I don't understand how you lump the two.

A good photograph has less to do with bokeh than with composition and concept. 35mm should be more versatile than 90mm.
Hi

Thank you for your advice. I totally agree that they have different focal length, that is why I am confused at what to buy to best fit my usage (as I described). I never tried to lump those 2 together :)

So as I described, I want to use this lens to shoot portrait too, which I found tamron 90 2.8 produces nicer bokeh, as well easier to control for whole body portrait. I am not yet allowed to show this, but this is why nice bokeh inspires me :). This photo is not taken with tamron 90 2.8 btw

 

Last edited:

wazzupku

New Member
Apr 24, 2010
218
0
0
#17
If you are from Vietnam, then maybe you know the photographer :) T* 50 1.4 lens FYI
 

edutilos-

Senior Member
Dec 28, 2010
6,042
17
38
The Universe
www.facebook.com
#18
but this is why nice bokeh inspires me :). This photo is not taken with tamron 90 2.8 btw
Yet there is that horizontal streak on the top right area...

You can have the most perfect bokeh in the world, but it doesn't make a difference if you don't position yourself well. All that you entertain are the people looking out for good bokeh. Suspect you will find your audience rather limited, in that sense.
 

Top Bottom