Tamron 90mm Macro or 60mm Macro for Nikon DX
Dec 4, 2014 09:48:10 #
Hoggers, I need a little advise on which lens would better suit my situation. I am considering the purchase of a macro lens for my Nikon DX camera (5100 soon to upgrade to 7100 or next generation). I have been looking at the Tamron 60mm and the Tamron 90mm. Keeping in mind I do not anticipate moving to a FX system, which of these lens would work best? Plans would be to use it for its macro capabilities primarily for outdoor shots of flowers, bugs or other interesting subjects although indoors subjects not out of the question.. At times, would also want to use the lens in a typical walk around situation. I have a 10-24 and 18-300 so I have most of the normal focal lengths covered.
Will the 90mm give a greater macro magnification than the 60mm or would the 60 give the same results? If same, I think to 60 would be a better walk around lens do to focal length not being too telephoto. Most of my everyday shots seem to be seem to be in the 35 to 100 mm range.
Thanks and thoughts please
Will the 90mm give a greater macro magnification than the 60mm or would the 60 give the same results? If same, I think to 60 would be a better walk around lens do to focal length not being too telephoto. Most of my everyday shots seem to be seem to be in the 35 to 100 mm range.
Thanks and thoughts please
Dec 4, 2014 09:57:18 #
Yes, with a longer focal length it will give you a larger magnification although it could not be significant comparing both lenses.
I am not familiar with the 60mm but I am with the excellent 90mm f2.8 lens which by the way can be used with FX format.
This particular lens is also a killer for portraits, especially in the studio under control lighting.
My recommendation is to go for the 90mm lens that offers a longer focal length and a slightly more comfortable working distance.
I am not familiar with the 60mm but I am with the excellent 90mm f2.8 lens which by the way can be used with FX format.
This particular lens is also a killer for portraits, especially in the studio under control lighting.
My recommendation is to go for the 90mm lens that offers a longer focal length and a slightly more comfortable working distance.
Dec 4, 2014 10:08:52 #
I agree with camerapapi. The 90mm would be my choice as well for the same reasons.
Dec 4, 2014 10:12:22 #
1) Tamron makes very nice macro lenses. There are better available.
2) 90mm is better for florals and critters than 60mm cause the standoff distance is a little further. Even longer would be better.
3) The best FX macros will provide better edge-to-edge performance on a DX sensor. The image on the DX body comes from the center of the lens where the best performance is. Check out the lens reports from Photozone.
4) Both of your choices are 1:1 magnification. No difference there.
5) To your comment regarding a walk around lens, "... I think to 60 would be a better walk around lens do to focal length not being too telephoto. Most of my everyday shots seem to be seem to be in the 35 to 100 mm range.". Most macro lenses do not make good all purpose lenses.
6) If I were buying a macro lens today my choices would be:
1-Sigma 70 HSM or 105 HSM OS
2-Nikkor AF-S 60 or AF-S 85
3-Your Tamron choices
2) 90mm is better for florals and critters than 60mm cause the standoff distance is a little further. Even longer would be better.
3) The best FX macros will provide better edge-to-edge performance on a DX sensor. The image on the DX body comes from the center of the lens where the best performance is. Check out the lens reports from Photozone.
4) Both of your choices are 1:1 magnification. No difference there.
5) To your comment regarding a walk around lens, "... I think to 60 would be a better walk around lens do to focal length not being too telephoto. Most of my everyday shots seem to be seem to be in the 35 to 100 mm range.". Most macro lenses do not make good all purpose lenses.
6) If I were buying a macro lens today my choices would be:
1-Sigma 70 HSM or 105 HSM OS
2-Nikkor AF-S 60 or AF-S 85
3-Your Tamron choices
Dec 4, 2014 12:00:00 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
I've used both, though all the 90mm Tamron lenses I've used have been earlier versions and the one I have now is an adapted vintage (1980s) manual focus lens.
Both are excellent macro lenses. The 90mm is a full frame compatible lens. The 60mm is crop sensor only. Both are flat field designs that are sharp edge-to-edge. No worries there or regarding image quality in general. In fact, these days I don't know of any macro lenses that don't give excellent image quality. I've been a fan of Tamron SP lenses, in particular, for their color rendition and image quality for several decades now.
Magnification potential is the same with all current versions of Tamron. They all can do 1:1 or "life size" magnification. This means on your camera you can photograph an area as small as 16mm x 24mm approx.... i.e., the same size as the camera's sensor. Most modern macro lenses care capable of 1:1. (A few extra compact ones only do 1:2/half life size. And some specialized lenses do much higher mag... One I use goes up to 5:1/5X life size).
The Tamron SP 60mm is quite compact... Plus it offers a larger than typical f2.0 aperture. This is unusual among macro lenses (Zeiss offers a couple f2.0 capable, but I don't know of any others).
For these reasons I use the 60mm in place of three lenses (50mm & 85mm portrait lenses, and a 100mm macro lens).
At closest focus (full 1:1 mag), the 60mm will have a about 9 inches minimum focus distance. Keep in mind that this dimension is measured from the film/sensor plane of you camera (indicated by the circle with a line through it, on most cameras), so the lens and some of the camera are occupying part of that space. Set to the highest magnification, the subject will be approx. 4 or 5 inches from the front of the lens (without the supplied lens hood installed).
The 90mm lens gives you a bit greater mimium focus distance... about 11 inches. And that makes for a bit more working distance... about 6 inches at the highest of magnification.
Keep in mind that a lot of "macro" shots actually aren't done at max magnifications... Many common shots use far less. For example, flowers and butterflies typically don't need anywhere near 1:1 mag.
There are actually two Tamron SP 90mm f2.8 lenses to choose between. The original is similar in design and build to the 60mm, using a micro motor focus drive and unstabilized. It sells for roughly $500 US, too, same as the 60mm.
These lenses are not fast focusing. They are macro lenses, which means they need to move their focus group a long, long way to go all the way from infinity to 1:1. Also, like most macro lenses they use "long throw" focus mechanisms, which are designed to emphasize accuracy over speed, which in turn is necessary because a high degree of focus precision is needed to deal with the very shallow depth of field that's inherent at high magnifications.
The other Tamron SP 90mm f2.8 lens is a newer, more expensive model (approx. $750 US I think) that's got image stabilization (VC) and a faster ultrasonic focus motor (USD). The latter helps with focus speed, but it's still a macro lens and you are unlikely to find it fast enough for sports action shooting.
All the current lenses are Internal Focusing (IF) designs, which means they don't grow in length when focused closer (some macro lenses are not IF and double or triple in length at max magnification setting, which can eat up a lot of your working distance).
Also, micro motor lenses should have autofocus turned off before you do any manual focusing with them, in order to avoid damage to the AF mechanism. The newer SP 90mm with USD offers full time manual focus, which means you can override and fine tune focus manually at any time, without having to first turn off AF.
FYI, the Sigma 70mm is an older lens model that uses a micro motor focus drive and has an f2.8 max aperture. The current Siggy 105mm has their HSM ultrasonic focus drive and OS image stabilization.
A note on image stabilization. It doesn't really help very much at macro lenses' highest levels of magnification. It might give 3 or 4 stops assistance at non macro shooting distances, but the higher mag you are using, the less effective it will be.
Like most manufacturers, Tamron also makes a 180mm macro lens. This gives a lot more working distance from shy subjects, but this long a macro lens is considerably harder to hold steady, renders razor thin depth of field requiring use of even smaller apertures that in turn makes for even slower shutter speeds, and tend to be slower focusing than shorter focal lengths as well. The Tammy 180mm has not yet been fitted with VC or USD, either.
Sigma makes both 150/2.8 and 180/2.8 macro lenses, both of which have been updated with their HSM focus drive and OS stabilization. However, especially for use on a crop sensor camera I wouldn't recommend this long focal length for general purpose macro work or as a first macro lens. These focal lengths are more likely to require a tripod to get a steady shot.
I am not familiar with the Nikkor alternatives.
I shoot with Canon gear and use several of their macro lenses. Some things they offer that others don't.... the Canon 100mm macro lenses can optionally be fitted with a tripod mounting ring. Since a tripod is often desirable for macro shooting, this feature alone makes the extra cost of these lenses worthwhile to me, personally.
The Canon macro lenses also have Focus Limiter features. These allow you to set the focus to only work within a certain range, which helps a bit with focus speed when using the lens for non-macro purposes.
If you want a very compact lens that doubles nicely for portrait work, the 60mm might be a good choice. However, there may be some subjects such as small insects where you find yourself too close for high magnification shots. I wouldn't recommend 50mm and shorter macro lenses for general, outdoor use (they are good for studio work, though).
If you want a bit more working distance, the 90mm might be a better choice. Then you'll have to decide between the two versions that Tamron offers.
The Sigma macro lenses are good too. In general, I find their prices a little higher and their lenses tend to be a bit larger and heavier, on average.
There also is a fine Tokina 100/2.8 AT-X Macro lens. It is an older model using a micro motor focus drive.
Both are excellent macro lenses. The 90mm is a full frame compatible lens. The 60mm is crop sensor only. Both are flat field designs that are sharp edge-to-edge. No worries there or regarding image quality in general. In fact, these days I don't know of any macro lenses that don't give excellent image quality. I've been a fan of Tamron SP lenses, in particular, for their color rendition and image quality for several decades now.
Magnification potential is the same with all current versions of Tamron. They all can do 1:1 or "life size" magnification. This means on your camera you can photograph an area as small as 16mm x 24mm approx.... i.e., the same size as the camera's sensor. Most modern macro lenses care capable of 1:1. (A few extra compact ones only do 1:2/half life size. And some specialized lenses do much higher mag... One I use goes up to 5:1/5X life size).
The Tamron SP 60mm is quite compact... Plus it offers a larger than typical f2.0 aperture. This is unusual among macro lenses (Zeiss offers a couple f2.0 capable, but I don't know of any others).
For these reasons I use the 60mm in place of three lenses (50mm & 85mm portrait lenses, and a 100mm macro lens).
At closest focus (full 1:1 mag), the 60mm will have a about 9 inches minimum focus distance. Keep in mind that this dimension is measured from the film/sensor plane of you camera (indicated by the circle with a line through it, on most cameras), so the lens and some of the camera are occupying part of that space. Set to the highest magnification, the subject will be approx. 4 or 5 inches from the front of the lens (without the supplied lens hood installed).
The 90mm lens gives you a bit greater mimium focus distance... about 11 inches. And that makes for a bit more working distance... about 6 inches at the highest of magnification.
Keep in mind that a lot of "macro" shots actually aren't done at max magnifications... Many common shots use far less. For example, flowers and butterflies typically don't need anywhere near 1:1 mag.
There are actually two Tamron SP 90mm f2.8 lenses to choose between. The original is similar in design and build to the 60mm, using a micro motor focus drive and unstabilized. It sells for roughly $500 US, too, same as the 60mm.
These lenses are not fast focusing. They are macro lenses, which means they need to move their focus group a long, long way to go all the way from infinity to 1:1. Also, like most macro lenses they use "long throw" focus mechanisms, which are designed to emphasize accuracy over speed, which in turn is necessary because a high degree of focus precision is needed to deal with the very shallow depth of field that's inherent at high magnifications.
The other Tamron SP 90mm f2.8 lens is a newer, more expensive model (approx. $750 US I think) that's got image stabilization (VC) and a faster ultrasonic focus motor (USD). The latter helps with focus speed, but it's still a macro lens and you are unlikely to find it fast enough for sports action shooting.
All the current lenses are Internal Focusing (IF) designs, which means they don't grow in length when focused closer (some macro lenses are not IF and double or triple in length at max magnification setting, which can eat up a lot of your working distance).
Also, micro motor lenses should have autofocus turned off before you do any manual focusing with them, in order to avoid damage to the AF mechanism. The newer SP 90mm with USD offers full time manual focus, which means you can override and fine tune focus manually at any time, without having to first turn off AF.
FYI, the Sigma 70mm is an older lens model that uses a micro motor focus drive and has an f2.8 max aperture. The current Siggy 105mm has their HSM ultrasonic focus drive and OS image stabilization.
A note on image stabilization. It doesn't really help very much at macro lenses' highest levels of magnification. It might give 3 or 4 stops assistance at non macro shooting distances, but the higher mag you are using, the less effective it will be.
Like most manufacturers, Tamron also makes a 180mm macro lens. This gives a lot more working distance from shy subjects, but this long a macro lens is considerably harder to hold steady, renders razor thin depth of field requiring use of even smaller apertures that in turn makes for even slower shutter speeds, and tend to be slower focusing than shorter focal lengths as well. The Tammy 180mm has not yet been fitted with VC or USD, either.
Sigma makes both 150/2.8 and 180/2.8 macro lenses, both of which have been updated with their HSM focus drive and OS stabilization. However, especially for use on a crop sensor camera I wouldn't recommend this long focal length for general purpose macro work or as a first macro lens. These focal lengths are more likely to require a tripod to get a steady shot.
I am not familiar with the Nikkor alternatives.
I shoot with Canon gear and use several of their macro lenses. Some things they offer that others don't.... the Canon 100mm macro lenses can optionally be fitted with a tripod mounting ring. Since a tripod is often desirable for macro shooting, this feature alone makes the extra cost of these lenses worthwhile to me, personally.
The Canon macro lenses also have Focus Limiter features. These allow you to set the focus to only work within a certain range, which helps a bit with focus speed when using the lens for non-macro purposes.
If you want a very compact lens that doubles nicely for portrait work, the 60mm might be a good choice. However, there may be some subjects such as small insects where you find yourself too close for high magnification shots. I wouldn't recommend 50mm and shorter macro lenses for general, outdoor use (they are good for studio work, though).
If you want a bit more working distance, the 90mm might be a better choice. Then you'll have to decide between the two versions that Tamron offers.
The Sigma macro lenses are good too. In general, I find their prices a little higher and their lenses tend to be a bit larger and heavier, on average.
There also is a fine Tokina 100/2.8 AT-X Macro lens. It is an older model using a micro motor focus drive.
Dec 4, 2014 14:28:13 #
Dec 5, 2014 08:50:55 #
Hi ,I know there have been many suggestions but have you considered nikon 105mm macro.this lens may be expensive but highly rated.when you have a 105 vs the other types you don't have to get as close as you have to with the other lenses.this allows you not to scare off the subject and allows more light on the subject since you don't have to get as close but still get a real close up.if you consider the 105 nikon look at e bay sometime you can get a good deal. Good luck.
Dec 5, 2014 10:55:22 #
Dec 5, 2014 11:12:59 #
Don't forget to post your shots on the True Macro section of uglyhedgehog.
Dec 5, 2014 13:07:21 #
jrb1213 wrote:
Don't forget to post your shots on the True Macro section of uglyhedgehog.
Will do! Should order the lens next week, if I can get permission from Mrs Moneybags.
Dec 5, 2014 13:50:57 #
threedeers wrote:
Will do! Should order the lens next week, if I can get permission from Mrs Moneybags.
Sigma has $300 instant savings on their excellent 105mm macro lens. That brings the price down to $669....May help with Mrs. Moneybags.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.