Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro -- Non-Macro Photo Set

I am a big sucker for macro lenses.  At current count, I have three autofocus ones: Canon 180mm f3.5L, Canon 100mm f2.8L IS, and the Tamron 90mm f2.8, and there is a half dozen or so manual focus macro lenses.  I actually don't shoot a lot of pictures at macro range (1:1), but I like the very close focus capabilities of these lenses.  Besides, I haven't seen a really bad macro lens, yet!

I traded a few manual focus lenses that I hadn't used for this Tamron SP 90mm f2.8.  I used (and still have a broken one) one of the first version of Adaptall 90mm f2.5 briefly, also a fine lens, but the modern AF version is simply much better.  Extremely sharp, even at f2.8, and even at infinity, which the lens was not optimized for. No, it's not as good as the Canon 100mm f2.8L IS.  The sharpness of that lens is legendary, but the Tamron holds its own quite well, especially at less than half the price of the Canon.  True, the 100mm f2.8 has image stabilization, and is much better built.

One of the things I don't like about his lens is the focusing.  It's nothing like the EF 100mm f2.8L with its UltraSonic Motor (USM) for lightning fast and silent focus.  The Tamron is a lot noisier, slower, and less accurate.  Once in a while, I would get a picture not critically focused.  Not ruling out user error, though.

I think this lens is an excellent value, offering versatility from macro to portraiture, and 90mm is a very comfortable focal length for full frame as a short telephoto.  In fact, I am quite impressed by its image quality. If you overlook its plastic construction, occasional mis-focus (or user error, not sure), it's a great value.

All pictures below were taken with the Tamron SP 90mm f2.8 and Canon 5D Mark II.

From the Why Bother Department...

Believe it or not, I don't have any truly expensive manual focus lenses. The Kinoptik 210mm f2.8 Speciale cine, which while expensive, is not truly expensive. The reason is that I buy lenses to satisfy my own curiosity of how each lens renders pictures, but unfortunately, I don't have a lot of disposable income, so expensive lenses are out of the question. In a sense, I am not really a photographer, but rather, a camera/lens user. What excites me, or, if you like, what has driven me near the edge of insanity, is finding new ways to make pictures. Besides the garden variety normal lenses, I also use projection lenses, enlarging lenses, copy lenses, printing lenses, ground glass magnifier, or, just the front element of the a dismantled lens, to take photographs. Sometimes I would spend days, even weeks, trying to find a way to mount some odd ball glass to the camera so that I could use it to take pictures, just want to see how the pictures are rendered, from lenses not made for this purpose. Now, you tell me. Does a normal person do this? Most would spend the time on how to take better pictures, no?

Anyway. Few years ago I bought some Kodak printing lenses from a camera show. These lenses have odd focal lengths like 63mm and 93mm, etc. and they all have a fixed aperture. Like enlarging lenses, the front and rear elements can be unscrewed easily and if needed, a different aperture disc can be inserted to change the native aperture value. They came with brass tubes which are then mounted inside commercial printing machines. Yesterday, I finally found a way to mount the 63mm f4.5 Printing Ektar lens to the helicoid, and today I had a chance to take some pictures with it. The lens captures an amazing amount of detail. Just like the Schneider Componon 80mm f5.6 enlarging lens, this one also has limited use, but it feels great to be able to capture images with it, and with very good quality.

Kodak Printing Ektar 63mm f4.5 with helicoid - Picture taken with 5D II & Tamron AF 90mm f2.8

Lens holding Brass Tubes - Picture taken with 5D II & Tamron AF 90mm f2.8. Click for larger.

Out of action derailleur - Sony NEX-6 & Kodak Printing Ektar 63mm f4.5. Click for larger.

Details - Sony NEX-6 & Kodak Printing Ektar 63mm f4.5

100% crop from picture above. Some softness with jpeg compression.