Tamron 90 macro or Canon 100 for portraits?

[Mr_Canuck]

So I bought a 50 f/2.5 compact macro. It's nice and small and sharp and great but it's just not close enough for my macro interests I've discovered. I'm also missing having a fast short-tele prime for portraits and such (had a minolta 100/f2 that was amazing). I'm shooting a 6D and have a 20mm, 40mm and 70-200/4.

I'm all about efficiency, portability and not having too much gear for lots of reasons. So I'm trying to avoid having both a ~100 macro and a fast prime like an 85/1.8. But I do know there's an appreciable difference between the look of f/2 and f/2.8.

AF speed is non issue for me, neither is super duper low light (though I'd really like IS/VC... lots of handheld available light shooting, not so much about tripods and strobes). This is about "the look" of the images mainly. I'd used my 100/f2 on Sony apsc a700 at f/2.2 quite a bit for a wedding and other people specific shooting and really liked that space. And it was even better on full-frame a800.

Will 2.8 really be that much different in look? Can I get away with a 90/100 macro as my portrait-type lens as well? What are your experiences with either or both the Tamron 90mm VC and the Canon 100mmL is?

I can get the Tamron for $600 and the Canon for $950 in Canada. Bottom line. If you force me to choose either an 85/1.8 or a 90/2.8 macro, I'll take the macro. (Maybe I just needed to type this out loud to decide.)

Yes, it's been discussed out there and I've read it, but not much here at canonrumors. ???

 

[wickidwombat]

look at dustins review of the tamron in the review section
at the time of the review the price was alot closer and the L better
but with the tamron coming down i think its worth a look

I have the 100 L it's a great lens

I also have the tamron 150-600 which is also great and i'm impressed with tamrons
significant improvment in build quality over the last generation happy meal build quality
they trundled out.

you could also get the 135L f2 and some kenko extension tubes for macro... i got mine second hand for $700
this is a seriously great lens but has no IS

 

[Haydn1971]

I'd second the 135L - stunning images, but I'd be tempted with a 100L Macro as a multi use alternative

 

[SwampYankee]

Here is a portrait I took with a 100mm 2.8L Macro

 

[Arty]

I have the Canon 85F1.8 and the Canon 100 F2.8 non-L macro lens. I prefer the view of the shorter lens on crop,for portraits. The macro lens is very sharp, but I really like being able to go to F2.
When I shot film, I used the 85MD F1.7 quite a bit for portraits and candids. The 105 macro was only used for macro work. It. Is nice to be able to control how sharp the image is with the aperture.
Once you are at F2.8 with the 85, the image is going to be pretty close to the sharpness you get with any lens of a similar focal length.
I took my 100 macro to the gardens yesterday, and was happy with the results I got with flowers, ducks, and bugs. I might have been happier with IS, but I would still prefer the 85 for portraits and low light.
Much of this is personal preference. If you are only shooting babies and young people in good light, a macro lens will work fine. I can"t tell you about the Tamron, but the Canon 85 is compact and sharp.
Macro lenses are a bit bulkier, of that matters to you.

 

[Random Orbits]

It looks like the 100L will suit you well. It seems like you've settled on a 100mm for a macro, but have you considered an even longer one (150-200) that will not overlap with the short tele portrait FL?

If you're looking for a 1 lens solution, then the 100L is a very good choice (haven't tried the Tamron 90). I used it as a macro and portrait lens (before I had other options). If you get more serious about single subject potraiture, you will end up having a f/1.2-1.4 85mm for that purpose specifically -- it just can't be helped. And having a f/2.8 prime at 100 will push you to have a faster option at 85 (as opposed to the f/1.8 ). A lot of primes at that range don't have very high max mag. specs. The 100L or similar macro will allow you to change the framing a bit more easily.

IS is more helpful for macro than for portraiture. For more serious macro work, you'll need strobes and/or a tripod, but the IS helps you stop down to extend DOF for handheld stuff.

 

[noncho]

In the same case I choose Sigma 105 macro OS, it's good for short telephoto, portraits and macro.
Tamron 90 VC still have more CA than Canon 100 macro and Sigma 105 OS, otherwise is good too.

Here is my review of Sigma 105 macro:
http://www.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=bg&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nonchoiliev.com%2Fblog%2F935

And some portrait shots with Canon 60D:
http://www.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=bg&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nonchoiliev.com%2Fblog%2F1042&sandbox=1
http://www.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=bg&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nonchoiliev.com%2Fblog%2F1135&sandbox=1

 

[Hjalmarg1]

if you have the 70-200mm 2.8, then you don't need the 100mm f2,8L because you'll get almost the same. If you want a 100mm lens, you can go for the Canon 100mm f2 USM that is super fast and sharp. On top, you will put some bucks in your pocket for something else.
If your interest is to have macro+portrait go for the 100mm f2.8L IS

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Yes, the difference between F2 and F2.8 for portraits is quite noticeable, unless you compare 100mm F2, and 200mm F2.8. How I find 200mm too long for portrait, I prefer Canon 100 F2 with a set of extension tubes.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Eventually, you will sell your lens. When you do, the Canon will bring a higher price, so your overall cost might be the same or even less.
I think the 100L is a wonderful macro for a crop camera, but for my 5D MK III, I'd like a longer focal length. However, the wonderful Image Stabilization in the 100L means its a carry around Macro, and I don't have to have all the gear for casual shots.

For portraits, its a compromise, so you need to decide on what the first priority and main use will be.

 

[K-amps]

I liked the 85/1.8 and the sister 100/2.0 both very similar, sold them and got the 100L, I don't miss them. I had similar requirements as you. If you want macro just go with the 100L which is very sharp. If you prefer the look of the F2 over having a dedicated macro, then get the 135 F2 with tubes.... choice is ultimately only yours.

 

[Aaron77]

The 100mm L is an amazingly sharp lens. If sharpness is key, then the 100mm L wins straight away.

I know the tamron is also a great lens as I have played with it and compared shots with it to a canon 100mm non L. They are both equally as sharp and I'd buy the tamron over the non L. However if you are considering the L. Then I would get it. It will hopefully be my next lens and is a little sharper then the non L, as well as better colours and of course IS.

In my opinion I'd get the canon 100mm L. You can't beat canon red rings!

 

[sdsr]

I can get the Tamron for $600 and the Canon for $950 in Canada. Bottom line. If you force me to choose either an 85/1.8 or a 90/2.8 macro, I'll take the macro. (Maybe I just needed to type this out loud to decide.)

I would too - I like to be able to get closer than the MFD sometimes, even if not macro-close (the ability to get closer will cancel out the isolation advantage of a faster aperture to the extent you're closer). I owned the previous Tamron for a while back when I used Pentax, and it was very good except for strong purple fringing; the Canon 100L is far better in that regard, though for all I know the new Tamron is too. Purple fringing can be a problem (assuming it bothers you in the first place) with the 85 f1.8 and 100 f2 (85L too for that matter).

When you say that AF speed doesn't matter much, are you taking into consideration hunting? Like every other macro lens I've used (it seems to be an inherent characteristic), the 100L can hunt quite a bit, especially if your distance from the subject keeps changing, and especially in low light - the 85 f1.8 and 100 f2 won't have that issue.

Anyway, if I were picking just one lens in this range it would be the 100L. (The new Tamron might be a good substitute - it seems to get impressive reviews.)

 

[Khalai]

When you say that AF speed doesn't matter much, are you taking into consideration hunting? Like every other macro lens I've used (it seems to be an inherent characteristic), the 100L can hunt quite a bit, especially if your distance from the subject keeps changing, and especially in low light - the 85 f1.8 and 100 f2 won't have that issue.

Focus limiter, if employed wisely, greatly reduces hunting. At least from my experience. 100L has (for a macrolens) blazingly fast AF. Not to mention contrast and colours of this beast. I use it as a macro/portrait hybrid lens (IS pun intended ) and it's fantastic. Sometimes even too sharp (but you can reduce sharpness and clarity much easier than sharpening soft lens anyway )

 

[segedi]

I have the 100mm Macro, with extension tubes (Kenko) and I think It makes a good macro lens, but I'd rather have a 180mm for macro. The working distance is really short for what I like to shoot - so short that the lens will cast a shadow and/or you bump into the subject! For portraits, it's OK.

Think about how you like to shoot, if you shoot 80% portrait and 20% macro, go with an 85mm and an extension tube or two. You'll loose some sharpness going this route, but you'll gain a wider aperture. And the 85mm 1.8 is a lot more compact than the macro. Though the new L macro seems smaller than the non-L macro I used to own.

If you're near or in Calgary, let me know and you can check out the 100mm L Macro.

 

[Mr_Canuck]

I liked the 85/1.8 and the sister 100/2.0 both very similar, sold them and got the 100L, I don't miss them. I had similar requirements as you. If you want macro just go with the 100L which is very sharp. If you prefer the look of the F2 over having a dedicated macro, then get the 135 F2 with tubes.... choice is ultimately only yours.

That's helpful perspective. I was looking through old images used with the Minolta 100 f/2 and I took a lot at f2 and 2.2. Surprisingly not a lot at f2.8 or 2.5. But if you've got f2, you use it. But I did notice that some shots where there were two people, shot at 2.2, one of them was out of focus. Beginner's mistake. Anyhow, I saw some taken at 2.5 and 2.8 and 3.2 and they all seem pretty nice in the backgrounds so I think I'm going to give the macro a try on its own and see how it goes. The Canon L bokeh seems highly thought of, and that's a priority for me. Not interested in the 135 length nor fussing with tubes. I like the simplicity of one lens, handheld, take the shot.

Thanks for all the input, everyone.

 

[Mr_Canuck]

A Canon 100L IS has come up for sale on classifieds in my small mountain town! Who'd have thought. Guessing I can get it for $750 like new with an HMC filter included. I think this will answer all my questions. Plan on picking it up!

 

[mackguyver]

Given your requirements, I would recommend saving up for the 85L II, if you can be patient.

 

[tayassu]

Given your requirements, I would recommend saving up for the 85L II, if you can be patient.

+1
Nevertheless, I bought the Tamron mostly for macro work, but it does a great job as a portrait lens on my 7D. I compared it to the 100L and found no difference in image quality. The IS seems to work better for macro, but it is equal for portraits. The only thing that is worse with the Tamron is low-light-focusing. I love it very much, although the 85mm 1.2 would be perfect for your needs.

 

[rs]

This is about "the look" of the images mainly. I'd used my 100/f2 on Sony apsc a700 at f/2.2 quite a bit for a wedding and other people specific shooting and really liked that space. And it was even better on full-frame a800.

100/2 on a Sony (1.5x) crop behaves much like a 150/3 lens on your 6D. F2.8 on FF is slightly better, but throw in the wider angle of view and things change again.

I'd say you've made an excellent choice going with the 100L - mine is simply great. Light, compact, solid, great IS, fast AF (with the focus limiter on), very sharp and great bokeh.