hanser

I am thinking of buying 90mm Macro tamron lens. As far as sharpness is the version with Vibration control sharper than the Non Vibration Control? Any difference. I assume they are both Auto focusing, am I correct?

Thunder_o_b Loc: NE Ohio USA

I am not a fan of Tamron. But I know people that have used that lens to great success. I have observed that the non IS lenses seem to be sharper.
And for macro you will eventually find that you are better off manually focusing.
Me? I am a fan of the Sig non IS 150mm f/2.8 macro.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Any true macro lens will give you good results as long as you employ a good technique...Auto focus should not be employed when shooting macro. VC really should not either. If you read the mfgr's literature, they notate this. AF & VR are only going to be of good use if you intend to use the lens for non macro shots as well. You don't say what camera you are going to use it on....I shoot with Nikon & my go to macro lens is a Lester Dine MF 105mm F2.8 macro that was made in the mid to late 80's. That said, all of my macro lenses AF & MF will meter with the cameras I use. By being able to use the older MF lenses, I was able to save money for other goodies...Consider buying used as well as that will save you as well...

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

I use both VR & A-F on my Nikkor 105G macro lens. It is strictly a personal preference. No characteristic of either function is detrimental to hand-held macro-photography. When I rarely use a tripod for macro-photography, I turn-off VR, as recommended by Nikon.

DOOK Loc: Maclean, Australia

I have this same lens in the nonstabilized version & use it on my Nikons. I bought it originally to do macro. I have since lost interest in macro, but it doubles up as a conventional prime lens & is very, very sharp. I use it mainly as my 'garden lens'. It is easy to zoom with one's feet in a garden, & being a macro lens, getting ultra close ups of small flowers is a breeze. By the way, auto focus works well.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Copied from Thom Hogan's website concerning VR & AF

"The exact words in the Nikon manual say "As the reproduction ratio increases from 1/30x [sic], the effects of vibration reduction gradually decrease." In other literature, Nikon has flat out said to turn off VR for macro use. What's the real answer? The manual is correct, basically. The closer you focus, the less VR has an impact on the final image. At 1:1 (the closest focus distance), it may not impart any benefit (it didn't seem to in the testing conditions I could create). So do you turn VR off when working in macro? If you're pressed up towards the limits of focus, I'd say yes--you're wasting battery life and potentially making it more difficult to hit a focus point. But if you're focused out beyond two or three feet (~.7m+), it probably makes sense to leave it on, as you'll get some benefit (though not the four stops Nikon claims for the system unless you're focusing far further out into the scene)."
"Autofocus is very fast and secure at normal focus distances, but a bit jittery at macro distances. I don't see that as a problem, frankly. At macro distances you should be focusing manually and have the camera on a secure platform if you want precise focus. The lens is certainly usable in autofocus at 1:1, but you're asking an awful lot of any focus system to get precise focus at that level of close up. You'd better not have a moving subject or any wind in the scene, and the camera itself better be on a support system that simply doesn't move.

As I've already noted, the VR works perfectly fine at normal focus distances, but its performance degrades as you move very close to your subject. This, coupled with the AF jitter at really close distances, will almost compel you to go manual to get consistent results. I don't find that to be a problem. Macro work is precise and slow if you're doing it right. On the other hand, VR did seem to help improve results even in some moderately close macro work (1:3 or so), so I probably wouldn't turn it off until you're truly pushing the limits of the lens' focus or on a tripod. "

Here is the link to Thom's review
http://www.bythom.com/105AFSlens.htm

I have macro lenses that are AF but none that are VR...Most of my lenses are older manual focus versions so I don't have any personal experience here, just what Nikon states. That said, Canon's newest version of stabilization is said to work well with macro, but then again, I don't shoot Canon...

hanser

Actually I am using D2X, D200 and D80

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

a good lens,pair with a tripod or monopod when possible.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

For static subjects, yes a tripod helps but the ultimate benefit is additional illumination as it allows you to stop down your lens for greater DOF, stops both subject & your movements & is easier to use in the field...

infestation Loc: Brampton, Cumbria, UK

I use the Tamron, but on a pentax system, find it very satisfying, my one but with it though is, it seems to draw in the dust almost as bad as one of my zoom lenses, and no matter what others say when using extension tubes there are a couple of areas that need tidying depending on background.

jrb1213 Loc: McDonough GEorgia

While this does not help you it may affect others reading this, the Canon 100mm F2.8L IS has the newer stabilization system and works at macro distances. (This is both from articles and personal observation). It will not auto focus at macro distances but beeps when the center focus point is in focus. Bad news is that it is right at US$1000.00.

hangman45 Loc: Hueytown Alabama

There have been a few test sites that I have been to that say that it is sharper than the Canon or Nikon
http://www.adorama.com/alc/0008512/article/100-in-100-Part-II-Macro-lens-buying-guide
http://photo.net/equipment/canon/can-tam-macro/

It is the one I am going to buy once I find out whether or not I won the Tamron Macro contest if I won will not have to buy one.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Winning one is the best way to go (good luck)....That said, I have found that the difference (optically) isn't that significant with most true macro lenses. Greater differences in features & build quality than optically. If you don't win one, KEH has a good number of Tamron, Sigma, Tokina & other macro lenses at good prices...AF & MF models...A lot cheaper than eBay & a warranty to boot...I've bought several lenses there this year & am in the market for another...Plus I need a hood. The one I am looking at costs $3....Ebay's lowest domestic price is like $12 for the same one...