Anyone useing a tamron 90mm macro lens?

[Magickiwi]

Originally Posted by windcoast reefs

Come on man, you know just as well as I do by saying something like that, your not convincing anyone. It makes you look like your trying to justify your purchase of the 100mm, which is a fine lens, but has nothing to do with the post. And how is this helping him?

I have used the 90mm, its slow to focus, and its noisy when focusing, but its sharp and its a huge savings over a canon or a nikon equivalent. I picked one up as a secondary lens, lightly used for $250. I use it while I'm climbing/mountaineering, just in case I take a fall or dump it in the snow, its not crazy to replace.

So anyway........:

Canon > Tamrom and I'd at least LOOK at the Canon equivalent of this lens because you'll likely find there's more to the price difference than just the name.

[Ross]

The big issue I have with a lot of 3rd party lenses (Sigma, Tamron, Tonkina, etc) are the creature comforts.
USM motors, a lack of full time manual focus, extending /rotating lens barrels, general feel, build quality, etc.
Optically they usually are decent, but I'm not always sold by the areas that they skimp on.

[duncangweller]

I have it and can't fault it. I spoke with a lot of pro food photographers and they all rated it higher than the canon 100mm and 60mm. Its a great price also. Fantastic lens....DO IT!

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[uniboob]

Originally Posted by Phil

I like the lens I ended up buying at Mcbain cameras in Edmonton I like there store because Thell take your used gear on trade in for a good price and also sell used equipment. The next thing I need is a new camera as I'm useing a older Nikon 5000 think it's onley 14.5 mp the new 5200 are somewere around 25+ mp

I own the 90mm tamron for Nikon, love it.

Next question... Why in the world do you need 25+ mp?

[kien]

NEED. MOAR. PIXELS!! Not really.. but it's fun to brag about it.

.. seriously though, who needs 25+ megapixels ?!?!

[Coasting]

Originally Posted by kien

NEED. MOAR. PIXELS!! Not really.. but it's fun to brag about it.

.. seriously though, who needs 25+ megapixels ?!?!

Isn't there some new cell phone out with like 40mp?

Never understood why people seem to think massive MP's are so important... Then I remember they probably don't have a clue I don't think ill ever need a photo that large O_o

I have canons 60mm macro and love it. Couldn't afford anything better at the time. I'm not sure off brands could stand up to the abuse I put my stuff through....

[kien]

Originally Posted by Coasting

Isn't there some new cell phone out with like 40mp?

Never understood why people seem to think massive MP's are so important... Then I remember they probably don't have a clue I don't think ill ever need a photo that large O_o

I have canons 60mm macro and love it. Couldn't afford anything better at the time. I'm not sure off brands could stand up to the abuse I put my stuff through....

I have a full frame Canon 5D Mark II as well as a crop sensor Canon 40D. I got the Full Frame out of curiosity to see the difference between the two. After using the full frame camera for 4 years I discovered that 9.5 times out of 10, I resized the 22mp image down to 10mp to save disk space (as well as transfer and processing times). Moral of the story, even though I have 22mp available to me, I have NEVER used all 22mp. I literally threw away half of the pixels each and every time I processed my photos. Even when I shot weddings and family portraits I would give customers a 10mp file which was more than enough pixels for any sort of printing they'd ever want to do. This is why I keep around and frequently use my much lighter, native 10mp Canon 40D.

When I process my photos for the web (flickr, canreef, facebook, emailing, etc), I throw away even more pixels and resize to something like a 3 or 4 mega pixel image

[Magickiwi]

Originally Posted by kien

I have a full frame Canon 5D Mark II as well as a crop sensor Canon 40D. I got the Full Frame out of curiosity to see the difference between the two. After using the full frame camera for 4 years I discovered that 9.5 times out of 10, I resized the 22mp image down to 10mp to save disk space (as well as transfer and processing times). Moral of the story, even though I have 22mp available to me, I have NEVER used all 22mp. I literally threw away half of the pixels each and every time I processed my photos. Even when I shot weddings and family portraits I would give customers a 10mp file which was more than enough pixels for any sort of printing they'd ever want to do. This is why I keep around and frequently use my much lighter, native 10mp Canon 40D.

When I process my photos for the web (flickr, canreef, facebook, emailing, etc), I throw away even more pixels and resize to something like a 3 or 4 mega pixel image

That 5D is a sweet body. Trade you for another 40D with a battery grip? Since you like them so much

[Ross]

I see your 40d and raise you a 50d...

[kien]

Originally Posted by Magickiwi

That 5D is a sweet body. Trade you for another 40D with a battery grip? Since you like them so much

The body is very similar to the 40/50/60D. The only real difference is the larger sensor, lack of pop-up flash and the slightly larger/heavier body. I suppose if you have larger hands then the larger body may feel more comfortable in your hand. Comfort of a camera is very subjective though. For me, bigger isn't better. A full frame camera body also means that the lenses that go with it will tend to be much bigger and heavier as well. Again, I've shot weddings while lugged these beasts around and definitely appreciate the smaller/lighter body/lens setups. Instead of the beastly 70-200 F2.8L, I sold it and got the 70-200 F4L IS at half the weight, which works much much better for me and gets more use. Similar to the 24-70 F2.8 that I used to own. Way too heavy so I sold it and go the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 and Canon 24-105 F4L. Both lighter and cheaper.

Having said all that! I am on the verge of selling my 5D Mark II and side-grading to the 6D. I would not consider this an upgrade or a downgrade. It's a side-grade The new 6D is lighter than my 40D !! That alone is worth it.