How about just forwarding the pics by email to a few for their thoughts instead?
How about just forwarding the pics by email to a few for their thoughts instead?
I ended up telling the guy I wasn't interested.
I have thought about the Tammy 90mm but this statement on Photozone is what stops me from purchasing it ...
"Typical for most macro lenses the Tamron AF 90mm f/2.8 SP Di macro performed very good to excellent in the lab. The lens is already very good in the center at wide-open aperture with marginally worse corners. The lens reaches its peak performance at f/5.6 where is scratches the resolution limits of the 8 mega pixel sensor of the EOS 350D. Beyond f/8 diffraction is the limiting factor - a physical barrier where no smart lens design can help. Generally you should avoid stopping down beyond f/16."
Many times for macro shots, I stop down to f/8 and beyond. So, I always thought this lens wouldn't be a good choice.
This is their statement for the Sigma 70mm ...
"Macro lenses tend to be stellar performer thanks to a usually very conservative max. aperture and the Sigma follows this tradition. The resolution characteristic is generally excellent straight from f/2.8 all the way down to f/11 with a slight peak in the f/4-5.6 vicinity. Due to the usual diffraction effects the resolution is reduced to very good levels at f/16 and good quality at f/22."
Last edited by ddt0725; 05-03-2012 at 03:55 PM.
You understood photozone to say "Generally, you should avoid stopping down beyond f/16 *on this particular lens*". But they didn't mean that particular lens -- they meant every lens from every manufacturer. For whatever reason, they don't mention the same thing on other lens reviews, but it's not because of anything specific to the Tamron lens. In any case, as you already know, you can get perfectly acceptable results from f/22 and beyond, so ignore that particular bit of advice.Originally Posted by ddt0725
Reviews are one thing, but how one uses the lens to produce photos makes the difference to me. I often stop my 7D to f/11 and f/13 where defraction is suppose to be terrible, but don't really see a problem. Brian uses a 5D for his tamron photos and as you can see, they are beautifully done. Its all about PP. YOu have a couple good choices there and I don't think you can go wrong with either one. I was just thinking that the 90mm Tamron would give a little more working distance if you needed it.
Without a doubt the added focal length would be beneficial so the Tammy is still under consideration.
Sorry for being so dense and maybe I am getting to analytical about this but could someone explain to me what this means on the difference in the two Canon 100mm macros as far as does it make a difference on use or IQ or does it just have to do with one having IS and the other not ...
100mm IS - Lens Construction: 15 elements in 12 groups
100mm non-IS - Lens Construction: 12 elements in 8 groups
In and of itself it is just how the lens is constructed. The IS version is an L lens, so theoretically much more went in to its design. Really it doesn't tell you it will have better or worse IQ because a lens with the same elements and groups could be improperly made or designed.
Not to make sellers remorse for you, but yes the IQ of the 100mm IS L is better than the 100mm non L's. The L version is a newer lens, and has the new coatings Canon started putting on lenses with the release of the 24L II. The charts show the L version to be better, and the ISO charts show it to be better.
Keep this in mind though; in the real world the difference in IQ is very fractional. Only when you pixel peep the fine detail would you probably notice.
As for your loss of IS, do you still have your macro flash? You could still chase the very small critters.
Well, the latest upate on my macro lens issue is that I received the Sigma 70mm yesterday and am returning it today. It didn't focus as well as the copy I had before and it was the old Sigma finish (ewwww) so I am still in need of a macro lens! And, I am still really torn on my decision of whether to get yet another 70mm or a different macro all together. I see Canon refurb's site has the 100mm non-L, non-IS lens in stock but I do not still have my macro flash and I guess I am worried about what was mentioned that the IQ is not as good. I'm sorry for being so indecisive on this but once you've gone "L" it is really, really hard to downgrade and accept the downgrade without constantly being critical of the results from the non-L, non-Canon consolation prize.
The image quality diffrence with the 100mm Canon's is there if you look wide open, if you stop it down though I don't think you will see any. Most of my Macro shots are F8 or better, I don't think I would notice.
I don't think any of the lenses you mentioned will live up to the memory of the 100mm L IS.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote