Tamron 90mm or Canon 100mm


TPF Noob!
Feb 20, 2009
Reaction score
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
Yes, it's a frequented question.

In AUD, the Tamron costs $500. The Canon costs $800.

I am aware that in other places, the difference is not much... but it is here.

I know the Tamron extends, but I'm afraid that if I photograph an insect, it might fly away due to the extending lens. However, I hear its bokeh is good.

I've also considered the 60mm... but think that I might as well get the 90/100mm for portrait shots.

Can the 60mm do portrait (good, that is) shots as well?

I know it isn't compatible with higher end models. I MIGHT change...

Also, background more blurred... 60mm is around $350.

I think I'll cross that out, actually.

Pros for Tamron:
- recessed lens, meaning no need for lens hood
- lighter

Cons for Tamron:
- extending lens would get annoying
- might not work on later Canon models

Pros for 100mm:
- no extending lens
- works on all Canon models

Cons for 100mm:
- with lens hood, is bigger than extended lens on Tamron
Lens hood, note, is provided for Tamron, not for Canon.

Although couldn't I just put on a UV filter?

Also, Tamron con: 55mm, while the 100mm is a convenient 58mm. Of course, lens hood comes free... hmm.
Another con for Tamron: AF at close is very bad and manual is suggested, also switching between AF and MF is annoying.
EDIT: a bit of research finds the Tamron produces better quality:


I do trust the results, as I've matched it with other sources as well.

Now, all I worry is:

Will macro lens need any other stuff, as there would be difficulty with 55mm filters?

If anyone has used either or both, please give your opinion (unbiased, so no brand siding). I'm just worried that the AF on the Tamron won't work well when focusing macro. I am aware that it makes noise and is slow, but does it work well.
Last edited:
Can the 60mm do portrait (good, that is) shots as well?

Yes. Very well indeed actually. On a crop sensor body, it's the equivalent to a 96mm lens and serves both macro and portrait purposes very well indeed. The only downside is that to take it to its minimum focal point, it does have to be very close to the subject, which can frighten off some insects.

Most reactions