Taron 90mm or Sony 100mm macro?

[adakshi]

Hello,

I'd like to know how do you rate these two macro lenses. Okay, I am not considering Sigma, as I don't like sigma colors, looks dull to me.

I'd like to use my macro as portrait lens too. I have read review and saw samples from dyxum, photozone, pbase, pixel-peeper, flickr, etc. I'd like to know pros and cons from forum users. I am pretty sure you guys were in the same boat when you purchased your copy. Probably someone has purchased both .

I could buy used minolta 100 f2.8, but I'd like to have warranty on my lens, just in case it has any FF/BF issue. In macro, focus needs to be spot on, I am not going to compromise there.

here are my key comparison features.

1. Sharpness

2. Contrast

3. Color

4. Ease of use (limter, focus speed)

5. Bokeh

6. Verstility (if can be used as portrait lens)

Does Sony macro worth that price difference? say the focus limiter is better, focus ring is easier to focus with, etc.

Appreciate any help.

Thanks
Ayan

[David Kilpatrick]

The Tamron comes with an excellent long warranty, but as far as I know, it is not equipped with a (D) type encoder and therefore does not relay anti-shake information for macro work to the digital SLRs. It is like the old Minolta pre-D 100mm in this respect. SSS works perfectly at portrait and landscape distances but is less accurate for macro. The final KM D version 100mm, and the Sony 100mm macro, are chipped to provide the best possible info to the SSS system.

Both the Tamron and the Sony/Minolta are internal compound focusing macro lenses. This means that although they are 90mm/100mm at infinity, they behave like much shorter focal length lenses at 1:1 (roughly like using a 75mm Tessar-type lens head, I am not going to try to work out the exact focal length shift). The Tamron focuses on 1:1 at 29cm from the film plane, while the Sony/Minolta is at 35cm from the film plane. This 6cm difference is not all 'open air' but in practice you get 3-4cm more space between the front of the lens and the subject with the Sony. For many, this is an important issue, as it avoids the lens casting shadows, hitting foliage, or disturbing insect subjects where a small amount closer can be enough to spook your target. If you use a ringflash or macro light attached to the lens filter rim, this extra distance is even more important to allow better lighting.

So, if you can afford the outlay, the Sony/Minolta may be a better design. But I've seen lovely work from the Tamron too.

David

[Winston]

Can't add much to what David offered. Here's a sample image shot wide open at 1/20 sec.

Sony DSLR-A700 with Minolta AF 100mm f/28 D Macro: 1/20s, f/2.8, iso200

[Dr. Harout]

Think about the Sony 50/2.8 Macro as well. I own it and it's a superb/excellent lens.
If you are sticking between the Tamron and Sony, well go for Sony definitely.

[Dr. Harout]

By the way, there is an article an Photozone.de posted today on Sony 50/2.8 Macro. Also you may look fot the Sony 100/2.8 Macro on the same site posted earlier.

[adakshi]

Thanks a lot for your inputs. Bad news is I was hospitalized for some kidney problem. I'll hold off the idea of buying this lens now for financial reason... may be after 3-4 months I'll reconsider it.

Anyway, thanks again for your help.

Ayan

[David Kilpatrick]

Get well soon! If it's kidney stones, get them to keep them for you, and you can photograph them with your macro lens. I knew someone who did that with their gall stones.

David

[Alain]

The Tamron comes with an excellent long warranty, but as far as I know, it is not equipped with a (D) type encoder and therefore does not relay anti-shake information for macro work to the digital SLRs. It is like the old Minolta pre-D 100mm in this respect. SSS works perfectly at portrait and landscape distances but is less accurate for macro. The final KM D version 100mm, and the Sony 100mm macro, are chipped to provide the best possible info to the SSS system.

Both the Tamron and the Sony/Minolta are internal compound focusing macro lenses. This means that although they are 90mm/100mm at infinity, they behave like much shorter focal length lenses at 1:1 (roughly like using a 75mm Tessar-type lens head, I am not going to try to work out the exact focal length shift). The Tamron focuses on 1:1 at 29cm from the film plane, while the Sony/Minolta is at 35cm from the film plane. This 6cm difference is not all 'open air' but in practice you get 3-4cm more space between the front of the lens and the subject with the Sony. For many, this is an important issue, as it avoids the lens casting shadows, hitting foliage, or disturbing insect subjects where a small amount closer can be enough to spook your target. If you use a ringflash or macro light attached to the lens filter rim, this extra distance is even more important to allow better lighting.

So, if you can afford the outlay, the Sony/Minolta may be a better design. But I've seen lovely work from the Tamron too.

David

Hi David

The tamron has 8 contacts, doesn't that mean it's likely a "D", or are those two rather unrelated?

The 3-4 cm extra room can be handy when doing 1:1 macro.

Last but not least the Sony is almost twice as expensive as the Tamron.

A happy Tamron owner.

Alain

[Dr. Harout]

Thanks a lot for your inputs. Bad news is I was hospitalized for some kidney problem. I'll hold off the idea of buying this lens now for financial reason... may be after 3-4 months I'll reconsider it.

Anyway, thanks again for your help.

Ayan

This forum is getting better and better day by day, hour by hour so all you have to do is GET WELL SOON (and that is my prescription).

[David Kilpatrick]

The tamron has 8 contacts, doesn't that mean it's likely a "D", or are those two rather unrelated?

Alain

It's D-chipped. Tamron has been putting D chips in their new lenses for some time. I think when I got a 14mm f2.8 SP LD it was cheap because it was a 5-contact version.

David

[ultima]

Hi all, I must say that the Sigma 105/2.8 also does an excellent job !

[01af]

The Tamron focuses on 1:1 at 29 cm from the film plane, while the Sony/Minolta is at 35 cm from the film plane.

That means that the effective focal lengths, at 1:1, are approx. 72 mm for the Tamron (= 80 % of the nominal focal length) and 87 mm for the Sony (= 87 % of the nominal focal length).

Generally, modern macro lenses will focus at closer distances by a combination of traditional focusing by extension plus internal focusing which works through decreasing the effective focal length. The lens designer has to decide about the balance between the two focusing methods. The two extremes would be either 100 % extension focusing or 100 % internal focusing. The former method used to be common in the pre-AF era. Back then, most macro lenses would focus to 1:2 via pure extension focusing and then cover the 1:2 - 1:1 range via an addtional extension tube---which means even more extension. The latter method---i. e. pure internal focusing---is found in many telephoto lenses but is not implemented in macro lenses covering the whole range down to 1:1 because it would mean cutting the effective focal length in half at life-size.

In macro lenses that are supposed to focus all the way down to 1:1 on their own devices (i. e. without additional extension tube or close-up lens), pure extension focusing would require an extremely long barrel which is (1) expensive, (2) mechanically delicate, and (3) hard to auto-focus. On the other hand, pure internal focusing would cut the lens' effective focal length in half---no-one who bought a 100 mm macro lens wants to end up with a 50 mm lens effectively at 1:1. So lens designers have to make a compromise and combine portions of both methods. Usually, the proportion of the internal focusing method is higher in longer macro lenses (180 mm, 200 mm) and less in short macro lenses (50 mm, 60 mm). So short macro lenses will keep their effective focal length almost constant while long telephoto macro lenses will lose a significant fraction of their nominal focal length at 1:1 due to a higher proportion of internal focusing.

To estimate the effective focal length of a macro lens set to 1:1, simply divide the subject-to-film-plane distance d (or subject-to-sensor, respectively) by four. Keep in mind that this method will work only with the lens set to 1:1 (m = 1). For different magnifications, the formula to estimate the effective focal length f from distance d and magnification m is f = m * d / (m + 1)². Note how this formula becomes f = d / 4 when m equals one. Also keep in mind that this formula is an estimation only as it neglects the distance between lens' principal planes (which we don't know anyway, usually ... if we knew it we had to subtract it from d before applying the formula).

-- Olaf

[adakshi]

Get well soon! If it's kidney stones, get them to keep them for you, and you can photograph them with your macro lens. I knew someone who did that with their gall stones.

David

Yes, its kidney stone. But it was sent to lab before I could snap it. I'll wait for next stone

Thanks
Ayan