Tamron 60mm 2.0 vs Tamron 90mm 2.8

[sneak3]

Hello!

Trying to make this hard decision, hope you guys can give me some insights.


Tamron 60mm f2.0. minimum working distance 10 cm. ~ $500.
Tamron 90mm f2.8. minimum working distance 9 cm. ~ $500.

I have a d7000 and I wont be upgrading to FX anytime in the next 5 or so years. So the tamron 60mm DX form factor is not an issue.

I will be shooting macro wildlife. I know I should be getting something with longer working distance but I just cant afford it right now. This will be my first macro.

Apparently the core difference is the better optical quality from tamron 60mm. Some people say the 90mm's extending barrel is a downfall but I havent concluded that so far. From another perspective, when the barrel extends, you would actually get more distance from the subject cause your body would be farther away from the subject, thus reducing the bug's fleeing chance.

Also, I will be using the built-in flash so Im not sure which one is best in that matter.

Thank you guys!

 

[greybeard]

Hmmmm. You are wanting to shoot wild life? The 60mm f/2 is really more of a portrait lens for DX with macro capabilities and the 90 is a f/2.8 macro. Of the 2 I would have to guess that the 90 would better for wild life simply because of its' longer focal length. Also, the 90 will work with FX while the 60mm is for DX only. ( World's first F2.0 Macro for APS-C DSLRs; ideal for portrait and macro shooting )

Amazon.com: Tamron AF 60mm f/2.0 SP DI II LD IF 1:1 Macro Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras: Camera & Photo

 

[sneak3]

Hey thanks for the quick reply!

Sorry, I made a mistake when I said wildlife only. What I meant really was macro wildlife. I already have a 70-300 for "regular" wildlife.

And that's why the choice is harder. The longer focal lenght tamron wont make any difference regarding macro shots.

 

[sneak3]

Any other insights you might wanna share?