Canon 100 2.8 IS Macro L or Tamron 85 1.8?

[Cory]

In the name of minimalism I'm going to swap out my Canon 85 1.8 for either the Canon 100L Macro or Tamron 85 1.8 for two reasons - so that all of my main lenses use the same 67mm filters and to maybe get an image quality bump. The image quality thing could potentially be a jump; not sure, but it'll be cool to get something new regardless.
The purpose, on my Canon 70D, would be portraits (#1), sports (mostly running races), stage performances (I normally use my 200 2.8, but sometimes 85 works) and general purpose.
Is there a "better" choice between the Canon Macro and the new Tamron? One factor is that I don't care much about macro.
Many thanks.

 

[Ryananthony]

If you don't care about macro much, what reasons do you have for considering it?

 

[Cory]

If you don't care about macro much, what reasons do you have for considering it?

Seems to do pretty well all-around, but you're right in the other possibly making more sense.

 

[greger]

The Canon 100 f2.8 ISUSM Macro is good for portraits and close up pics of flowers as well as Macro. I've used mine for tight landscape type shots. IS comes in handy for me. I don't regret buying mine. I took the 67 mm thread mount into consideration also. We have 3 other lenses that take 67 mm filters.

 

[bluenoser1993]

Sorry I don't know how to make the link that I've seen others do.

Check out The-Digital-Picture.com and compare the image quality of the two. On the 7DII (closest to your sensor) the Tamron is sharper at 2.8, on a FF it shows the Tamron to be sharper even when wide open (with exception of dead centre) and I'm not sure why the difference between the sensor formats.

The Tamron is only slightly heavier, but quite a bit shorter, so the weight will be closer to the camera and feel nicer in hand.

I haven't used either, so I'm looking forward to seeing what others who have will say about it, as the Tamron is on the short list of lenses I'd like to buy next.

How do you feel about not having a general zoom lens? I'm considering getting rid of mine and filling in the blank between my 35 f/2 IS and 135 f/2 with an 85mm. I'm just afraid of regrets after making the change.

 

[Cory]

Sorry I don't know how to make the link that I've seen others do.

Check out The-Digital-Picture.com and compare the image quality of the two. On the 7DII (closest to your sensor) the Tamron is sharper at 2.8, on a FF it shows the Tamron to be sharper even when wide open (with exception of dead centre) and I'm not sure why the difference between the sensor formats.

The Tamron is only slightly heavier, but quite a bit shorter, so the weight will be closer to the camera and feel nicer in hand.

I haven't used either, so I'm looking forward to seeing what others who have will say about it, as the Tamron is on the short list of lenses I'd like to buy next.

How do you feel about not having a general zoom lens? I'm considering getting rid of mine and filling in the blank between my 35 f/2 IS and 135 f/2 with an 85mm. I'm just afraid of regrets after making the change.

Thanks. No regrets at all not having a general zoom. I just like primes better for all the obvious reasons. Some like zooms better for all the obvious reasons as well. I'm actually selling my 24 and 50 with my feet being my zoom. I was cramming my 24 and 50 into a tiny bag when I found that I like my 35/camera in a larger more roomy bag.

 

[Bennymiata]

I have both lenses, and they are very different.
From my use, the 100L is a much sharper lens, all around, but the Tamron has better bokeh.
Focussing is more consistent with the Canon but the time to focus is pretty close.

Once you get the afma spot on for the Tamron (which does take some adjustment +18 on my 5d3) its focus is pretty good, but where the 100L gives you extremely sharp edges, the Tamron is softer, which is nicer for portraits.

Both lenses are relatively light and both are a joy to use.

If you've never tried macro shooting, give it a go.
It's very addictive.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

In the name of minimalism I'm going to swap out my Canon 85 1.8 for either the Canon 100L Macro or Tamron 85 1.8 for two reasons - so that all of my main lenses use the same 67mm filters and to maybe get an image quality bump. The image quality thing could potentially be a jump; not sure, but it'll be cool to get something new regardless.
The purpose, on my Canon 70D, would be portraits (#1), sports (mostly running races), stage performances (I normally use my 200 2.8, but sometimes 85 works) and general purpose.
Is there a "better" choice between the Canon Macro and the new Tamron? One factor is that I don't care much about macro.
Many thanks.

If you don't care about macro, simply do not consider it. However, I have owned the 100L and it is my favorite lens for portrait, despite having the 70-200/2.8L II, and that is the reason I haven't got another dedicated prime for portraiture.

 

[Monchomac]

Go for it! The 100 macro non L was my portrait lens for a long time, it is great for head shots and good for waist up portraits, at longer distances the f2.8 aperture is not enough to provide maximum separation from the background.
If you are very interested in portrait photography maybe the 135L would be a better choice. It will look like a 200mm f2.8 in your camera, maybe a little long, but awesome for headshots, and full body portraits given enough space. It does have a 72 mm filter thread, but it costs about the same as the 100L. I actually was about to upgrade my 100 to the 100L, but then saw a comparison between the macro and the 135L and I fell in love. The longer focal length plus the wider aperture gives you great background blur, and it focuses lighting fast. It also focuses fairly close. I still have the macro, but it only does macro stuff nowadays.

 

[rs]

Sorry I don't know how to make the link that I've seen others do.

Every change you make to lens/camera selection, aperture and focal length makes a change to the URL. Once you've found the selection you require, simply copy the URL.