Can't decide which macro

reaper7534 · Jun 10, 2017

I'm debating between the Tamron 90mm and Canon 100mm, non IS versions, don't really see the need for it. I know the USM focuses faster, but it that really needed in macro ? I do like how the Canon doesn't extend, but not a deal breaker. Any reason to choose one over the other, I will buy used/refurbished.

john.margetts · Jun 10, 2017

AF is not required for macro. All macro photographers I know focus by rocking the camera slightly. I would think IS is equally useless.

Sent from my A1-840 using Tapatalk

table1349 · Jun 10, 2017

A macro lens is still just a lens. It happens to have a very short focus distance and a few added features to make macro work easier. However you can use your macro lens for many other purposes besides just macro. I have the Canon and find it a excellent piece of glass. I have a preference for primes whenever possible so it is a nice mid focal length between my 85 f1.2 and 135 f2.

reaper7534 · Jun 10, 2017

Should have clarified I will use this as a portrait lens at times too and may add a 85mm, main reason I wanted good autofocus.

table1349 · Jun 10, 2017

Well considering that the difference between 85mm and 90mm to frame the same subject exactly is approximately 5 feet, the 90 seems to be more a more redundant focal length than the 100, if you do pick up an 85mm.

If you compare the 85mm to the 100mm to frame the same subject exactly they the working distance change is closer to 17 feet might be significant, especially in a studio situation.

reaper7534 · Jun 10, 2017

I did a best offer for a lens on ebay, the 2nd Gen Tamron. I low balled so doubt I'll get it. I'll most likely end up with the Canon 100mm USB or the Tamron 3rd Gen if don't win that one. Going by my signature, would a 24-70 pretty much fill out my focal length needs ? Or would the 24-105 be the better option

beagle100 · Jun 12, 2017

reaper7534 said:
I did a best offer for a lens on ebay, the 2nd Gen Tamron. I low balled so doubt I'll get it. I'll most likely end up with the Canon 100mm USB or the Tamron 3rd Gen if don't win that one. Going by my signature, would a 24-70 pretty much fill out my focal length needs ? Or would the 24-105 be the better option

'ending up' with a used Canon 100mm 2.8 macro non-L is .............. sweet
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

Derrel · Jun 12, 2017

I had the Canon 100mm EF f/2.8 Internal Focus (AKA the 'second version', the one that does NOT grow in length as it is focused). It is a rather slow focuser, and has sometimes harsh bokeh with sharp-sided bokeh balls on OOF point light source backgrounds....the Tamron 90mm AF-SP has been made in multiple versions, over decades, and is a good lens, with nice bokeh.

We've had discusssiins/arguments about this lenbs's hard-sided bokeh balls...it's an issue on SOME shots, like where there are many small, OOF areas in backlighting behind the close-upo subject...this lens has OLD-SCHOOL bokeh...the Tamron has been designed for smoother, creamier bokeh rendering....not important to some people, very important to other people.

The two lenses are relatively equivalent sharpness-w and contrast-wise..I prefer the "look"of the Tamron's images over the Canon's look....but many people are happy with the Canon. The Canon is a sharp lens, compact, and built SOLIDLY!

I agree...the IS model is NOT worth the extra dinero in a macro-oriented prime lens.

reaper7534 · Jun 12, 2017

Derrel said:
I had the Canon 100mm EF f/2.8 Internal Focus (AKA the 'second version', the one that does NOT grow in length as it is focused). It is a rather slow focuser, and has sometimes harsh bokeh with sharp-sided bokeh balls on OOF point light source backgrounds....the Tamron 90mm AF-SP has been made in multiple versions, over decades, and is a good lens, with nice bokeh.

We've had discusssiins/arguments about this lenbs's hard-sided bokeh balls...it's an issue on SOME shots, like where there are many small, OOF areas in backlighting behind the close-upo subject...this lens has OLD-SCHOOL bokeh...the Tamron has been designed for smoother, creamier bokeh rendering....not important to some people, very important to other people.

The two lenses are relatively equivalent sharpness-w and contrast-wise..I prefer the "look"of the Tamron's images over the Canon's look....but many people are happy with the Canon. The Canon is a sharp lens, compact, and built SOLIDLY!

I agree...the IS model is NOT worth the extra dinero in a macro-oriented prime lens.

Thanks Darrel,

I'm leaning towards the Tamron, either 2nd or 3rd gen depending on pricing. I've saw some awesome shots with it.

Derrel · Jun 13, 2017

You're welcome roper! The Tamron is a nice lens.

table1349 · Jun 13, 2017

Interesting write up on the two 100mm macros from Canon.
The Canon 100mm Macro vs 100mm Macro ‘L’ For Fashion & Beauty Photography

andrewdoeshair · Sep 2, 2017

I'm sure the op has picked up a lens by now, but I hope I can add a little value to this discussion with my recent experiences. I borrowed the 100mm F2.8L macro from a friend and loaned him my 135mm F2. I was torn between the two lenses when I bought the 135, and I wanted to see what I missed out on. I haven't tried the non-L 100mm macro, but I've gotta say that the IS was reallllly nice to have, especially for video. I was recently hired to shoot some video for a band playing in a bar and I did the whole set with the 100mm macro L... It was incredibly versatile, it was cool to be able to get in so close on guitar solo fingers and it was even cooler to shoot it all hand held. I've never been interested in image stabilization until trying that lens. The experience then motivated me to purchase a Tamron 35mm F1.8 (and deal with the known color fringing issues) just because of the VC (and all the shaky video I got during my last vacation).

Ps: the 100mm L is insanely sharp. You can count pores on portraits.

beagle100 · Sep 2, 2017

andrewdoeshair said:
I'm sure the op has picked up a lens by now, but I hope I can add a little value to this discussion with my recent experiences. I borrowed the 100mm F2.8L macro from a friend and loaned him my 135mm F2. I was torn between the two lenses when I bought the 135, and I wanted to see what I missed out on. I haven't tried the non-L 100mm macro, but I've gotta say that the IS was reallllly nice to have, especially for video. I was recently hired to shoot some video for a band playing in a bar and I did the whole set with the 100mm macro L... It was incredibly versatile, it was cool to be able to get in so close on guitar solo fingers and it was even cooler to shoot it all hand held. I've never been interested in image stabilization until trying that lens. The experience then motivated me to purchase a Tamron 35mm F1.8 (and deal with the known color fringing issues) just because of the VC (and all the shaky video I got during my last vacation).

Ps: the 100mm L is insanely sharp. You can count pores on portraits.
View attachment 146193

IS and STM are definitely better for video, not sure the OP cares about video
the old Canon 100mm 2.8 non-L is inexpensive and sharp
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

STR8SHOOTR · Sep 4, 2017

Did you look at the Sigma 105mm F/2.8 macro?

benhasajeep · Sep 4, 2017

I have never used it, but the Tokina 105 f/2.8 gets very very good reviews (from multiple online reviewers and magazines). And it's about 1/3 the cost of Canon / Nikon versions. I just about ordered one, but decided to go with Nikons 105 VR since I already had the Nikon 105 AF-D version.