Anyone useing a tamron 90mm macro lens?

[windcoast reefs]

Originally Posted by Magickiwi

I'll throw in the dissenting opinion for what it's worth!

I'm a Canon fanboy and I love their glass. Is this for a Canon camera? Nikon, Sony, etc?

If it's a Canon I'd look at the Canon 100mm prime macro. It used to be in their L-Series but they dropped it down to their regular line to promote their new (at the time) zoom macro. The glass is outstanding and the lens is very high quality. I've taken some outstanding shots with it.

If it's not for a Canon then don't worry about it because it will suck anyway. (baaazinnnnggggaaaaaaaaaaa!)

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.

[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.

[kien]

While I don't personally own this lens, I have borrowed it off of a friend and it is indeed a fine lens. Great bang for your buck and my friends who do own it continue to take fantastic macros with it.

As for the discussion about third party lenses, I have no issues with them myself. I have owned several lenses from Sigma (30mm f1.4) and Tamron (17-50, 28-75) and I have loved them all. For comparison sake, I did also own Canon's equivalent 24-70 f2.8 L series lens. While it was definitely sharper than Tamron's 28-75, I had to crop images to 100% to really notice. For all intents and purposes the images from both cameras were great and useable. I sold the Canon 24-70 f2.8 L because it was way too heavy for me to lug around. Yes, I'm a weakling. But in photography, there really is no point in buying or keeping a lens if it's just going to sit in your camera bag, which is what ended up happening to my more expensive Canon 24-70L. I used the sale of that lens to buy 3 new lenses

Also, Sigma and Tamron do develop lenses with their version of Ultra Sonic focusing motors. Definitely great value those lenses.

[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

[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.