Canon EF 100mm or Tamron 90mm ?

[Alabady]

Hi Everybody

I Want to buy Canon EOS 550D and I want to buy Macro lens with it


EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Lens
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Lens 3554B002 B&H Photo Video

OR

Tamron 90mm 2.8 Macro
Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro Autofocus Lens AF272C700 B&H Photo

Which one quality is better and will help me in Macro photography (Flowers, bees , insects and product photography) and why ?


Thanks

 

[usayit]

Given that you linked the "L" EF 100mm macro at almost double the price, I don't think it is much of a comparison. For one, the 100mm L has IS which would help a bit for those who prefer not to shoot on support.

Did you actually mean to link the EF 100mm f/2.8 (non-L)? Its about the same price as the 90mm Tamron.

Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Autofocus Lens 4657A006 B&H Photo

btw.. I'm partial to the tamron 90mm which has a long history of excellent performance since the days of the adaptall 90mm f/2.5. Very nice bokeh. Don't forget lighting..... in Macro, its about just as (if not more) important than the lens itself.

 

[Alabady]

Hi & Thanks a lot for your replay

No I didn't mean (NON L)

I meant what i have written before

EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Lens
Or
Tamron 90mm 2.8 Macro

 

[Overread]

Image quality wise the Canon 100mm f2.8 L was not much if any of a step up from the original version of that lens. That is not to say that the L is a poor performer, but more to say that macro lenses are generally very highquality optical setups to start with. Thus whilst there might be minor differences in performance that controled tests might show - in practical working terms there isn't a bad choice on the market currently.

Thus is a more a case of comparing features such as IS; build quailty; AF speed (the canon 100mm L is the best for AF performance for a canon body macro lens); focal length; internal focusing (not sure if the 100mm L has this or not - if not it simply means that the lens changes its length as it focuses).

Compare the the features of the lenses together and of course their price and then see which best suits your needs and offers you the best features for the budget that you are able to afford/save for.

 

[Alabady]

Thanks a lot for your kind replay

I'm a new photographer that's why:

I don't know how to compare between them ?

Can you help

(I want the lens to take photos for flowers bees and product photography)

Thanks in advance

 

[Overread]

About the biggest feature difference between them is the fact that the canon 100mm L has IS (image stabalization). This is a series of motors inside the lens which attempt to counter the motions of the person holding the lens (it will do nothing if the subject itself is moving) to remove the softness/blur from handholding.
It will also counter this motion activly as you focus the shot - so holding down half way on the shutter button will start the IS and then it will also give you a smoother view through the viewfinder.

In practical terms this lens you use a slower shutter speed whilst handholding the lens - if you use it on a tripod you'll turn the IS off (as there is no shaking to counter).

In macro practical terms its important to understand the the IS will have some effect, but less when in the closer distances than at the further distances. Furthermore much macro work done handheld is also done with a flash which in its own right helps to counter the shake. Thus IS is a boon to have certainly, but not an essential part of shooting.

 

[Bios.]

Get the 550d and some extension tubes to use with the kit lens.

this will help you two ways:

Firstly you can see if you like macro enough to warrant spending a significant amount of money on a dedicated lens.

Secondly macro lenses are hard to use but if you can get to grips with the extension tubes then if you decide you want the lens it will be a walk in the park.

I have the sigma 105mm which seems pretty good to me!

 

[Derrel]

I own the Tamron 90 AF-SP and the Canon 100/2.8 EF USM MAcro (not the new L-series). I prefer the Tamron's imaging characteristics...better bokeh from the Tamron...Canon has nicer, more-solid-feeling build quality, but is heavier. I think optically, the Tamron is the better lens. Both are quite adequate tools. Either one will be fine.

 

[usayit]

I own the Tamron 90 AF-SP and the Canon 100/2.8 EF USM MAcro (not the new L-series). I prefer the Tamron's imaging characteristics...better bokeh from the Tamron...Canon has nicer, more-solid-feeling build quality, but is heavier. I think optically, the Tamron is the better lens. Both are quite adequate tools. Either one will be fine.

Wow... We found something (equipment wise) to agree on!!! Woohoo...

I'd also like to stress that the difference of $$$ between the 90mm Tamron (or non-L canon) and the 100mm Macro IS L is best spent on flash. As Overread mentioned, much macro work is dependent on flash.

 

[Alabady]

First of all thanks a lot for all of you

What do you mean with flash macro

Is there a specific flash for macro ? If yes what is it's name ?

Can you give me a name or a link to check

Is

 

[Derrel]

I own the Tamron 90 AF-SP and the Canon 100/2.8 EF USM MAcro (not the new L-series). I prefer the Tamron's imaging characteristics...better bokeh from the Tamron...Canon has nicer, more-solid-feeling build quality, but is heavier. I think optically, the Tamron is the better lens. Both are quite adequate tools. Either one will be fine.

Wow... We found something (equipment wise) to agree on!!! Woohoo...

Yeah....well, I do not think we have much gear in common with one another...

Just as an aside, Mike Johnston, of the TOP blog, wrote that the "old" Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro, the pre-USM model the one that extends when close-focusing, has truly exceptional bokeh...I have not seen its images that I am aware of, but I do know that you have access to some good photo stores where quality used lenses come in from discerning customers...perhaps one of those 100/2.8 Canons will turn up in your favorite photo retailer's used equipment case...might be worth a look, since I know you appreciate the finer points of lens drawing and rendering.

 

[usayit]

First of all thanks a lot for all of you

What do you mean with flash macro

Is there a specific flash for macro ? If yes what is it's name ?

Can you give me a name or a link to check

Is

Because of the nature of macro, the DOF is quite difficult to work. To say its thin is a huge understatement. As such, the aperture ranges typically worked are f/8 to f/16 range to provide a more usable depth of field. This usually means one thing... you need light. Lots of it. Now there are many ways to provide that light...

The most basic being a ring light of some sorts:

Canon MR-14EX TTL Macro Ring Lite Flash 2356A002 B&H Photo Video

The MR-14EX will E-TTL with your camera. Cheaper options like the one I use if you are willing to work within limited exposure control options AND/OR determine exposure manually. My budget setup included a Vivitar macro ringlight that I found for $50. I set it to fire full all the time and determine exposure on my own. Ring lights light up subjects very uniformly...

For those serious macro shooters that want more control over their light source will use twin lights similar to this:

Canon MT-24EX Macro Twin Lite Ringlite Flash 2357A002 B&H Photo

The MT-24EX will also E-TTL with your camera. You'll have more control over the direction and intensity of the light. Each can be adjusted independently.

Other options include using your current flash (or flashes) and get them off camera via cords or wireless. Direct them appropriately as you would any subject. This time, just working them at close distances.

Yet another option are DIY project like this one which looks like fun:



Another option is to buy an attachment that allows you to use a normal flash as a ring macro flash. I have no idea of these things work:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/601824-REG/ExpoImaging_RAC175_RAC175_Ray_Flash_Ring.html

 

[usayit]

Just as an aside, Mike Johnston, of the TOP blog, wrote that the "old" Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro, the pre-USM model the one that extends when close-focusing, has truly exceptional bokeh...I have not seen its images that I am aware of, but I do know that you have access to some good photo stores where quality used lenses come in from discerning customers...perhaps one of those 100/2.8 Canons will turn up in your favorite photo retailer's used equipment case...might be worth a look, since I know you appreciate the finer points of lens drawing and rendering.

Now that's really interesting. I see KEH has a few listed... ebay doesn't show that many. As always, I'm game to try all sorts of glass, old and new, to see how it renders but alas I no longer have a Canon body to work with...

 

[soylentgreen]

The IS on the EF 100 f/2.8L IS is worth it's weight in gold. Hand-held macro shots at 1/25 even 1/15 of a second. That's unheard of. I could never get anything below 1/60 with my EF-S 60mm f/2.8 that is remotely acceptable. I have used all of Canon's macro lenses at one point or another, and the IQ on the new 100mm is pretty impressive. On par with the EF 180mm f/3.5L as far as color and contrast is concerned. IMO, I rate it above the 180mm in performance, followed by the EF-S 60, than 100mm f/2.8 and 50mm.