Comments on: Fstoppers Reviews the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 VC Macro Lens

By: JosephRT

JosephRT — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 04:15:00 +0000

No question for me, why would you not spend the extra $150 and get the EF 100mm 2.8L IS ? The 1:1 magnification doesn’t hurt the Tamron’s prospects though.

By: Rui Nelson Magalhães Carneiro

Rui Nelson Magalhães Carneiro — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 03:50:00 +0000

Because it’s way better to handheld a macro lens with VC

By: Ian Ludwig

Ian Ludwig — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 03:47:00 +0000

I agree with everything you said but surely you have had a time where busting out the tripod, head and rail would have meant you miss the shot? I love sitting with my rail setup and waiting but I have had a few times where it wasn’t available and having the ability to do a handheld 1:1 macro photograph was made possible due to the IS.

By: Jacob Abrams

Jacob Abrams — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 03:47:00 +0000

Yeah, I found that comment about Nikon vs Canon glass a bit out of place as well. I’m no fanboy for either side since I shoot with both, but I find that statement very subjective and slightly inaccurate.

If I must break it down…

Both offer good macro lenses and mid range telephotos (ie, 105mm & 135mm), both have have great fast aperture 85mm primes, and both have decent fast aperture 35mm primes (beaten by sigma now it appears). The larger disparity comes from the fast aperture 24mm and 50mm primes. In the opinion of most the Nikon 24mm is superior, but the Canon 50mm 1.2 is far better than the cheap Nikon 50mm 1.4.

At any rate, why bother bringing subjective bias into an otherwise objective lens review?

By: Spy Black

Spy Black — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 03:16:00 +0000

“I think the one clear area that Canon really has an advantage over Nikon is in the performance of their prime lenses”

You really need to have side-by-side proof of this before making such statements. I would put it more an six of one and half a dozen of another. More surprising is the rise of third-party lenses that beat both of these guys at their own game.

By: Barry Johnson

Barry Johnson — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 03:00:00 +0000

I just don’t see the importance of fast AF on a macro lens unless the dual purpose (portrait as well) is part of the marketing. Hell most of us Macro geeks use tripods and focusing rails.Not too mention 5x/10x live view focusing.

By: Ian Ludwig

Ian Ludwig — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 20:57:00 +0000

This guy landed in my driveway and I had just enough time to grab my macro lens from my back, swap it and crouch down. Granted, this was with the 100L IS but I would never go back to not having VC/IS/VR for a macro lens. Handheld at 1/40th:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ianludwig/7701697206/in/set-72157612923977650/lightbox/

By: richardaevans2

richardaevans2 — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 19:01:00 +0000

In addition, how many macro shooters really rely on good lighting? Lots! Therefore, what’s the real upside of having VC? I guess it’s cool to have than not though…

By: richardaevans2

richardaevans2 — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 18:58:00 +0000

Save up and get the Canon 100mm L glass. The cheap build is unacceptable at their price point but the real true deal breaker for me is the autofocus inconsistencies.