![]() On top of which, it comes at a highly competitive price for such a great quality piece of glass.Ĭonsequently, anyone in the market for a macro lens that ticks all the boxes and yet doesn’t break the bank will struggle to find serious fault with the Tamron 90mm. Otherwise though, the lens is well-built, supremely sharp, and optically very sound. Be aware, however, that some users have complained that the Tamron 90mm doesn’t truly provide an aperture of f/2.8 when used close up. The lens comes with a plastic lens hood and takes 62mm filters. This makes it a great option for nature and wildlife photographers. In terms of sturdiness and build, this newer model is much better than the older plastic AF version of the lens, as both the lens barrel and mount are made from metal, and the whole thing is weather sealed. In this case though, you can easily switch to manual focusing operation, achieved by a quick turn of the satisfyingly-large focus ring. However, on the downside, autofocus can be prone to hunting slightly when used in live-view mode.Īnd while quiet, AF is not totally silent. As an earlier poster mentioned, the minimum focus distance is rather long, but this potential handicap can be overcome by fitting a macro conversion lens such as the Raynox DCR-150 I use, as I hope the following (explored) image illustrates.The 90mm’s image stabilization works extremely well, even when used very close up.Īnd autofocus, too, performs excellently overall. Since then, I have found that my 55-300 doubles up quite nicely as a pseudo-macro lens, certainly well enough to meet my requirements. ![]() I'm coming late to this discussion, but my thoughts, FWIW, are as follows.Ī few months ago, I sold my (excellent) Tokina 100mm macro lens, as I hadn't used it in over a year and felt that my interest in close-up/macro photography was not at a level sufficient to justify hanging on to it. Seems like this lens will do for now unless I really catch the macro bug or something and decide to buy a dedicated lens.Īre you using Tamron 70-200 on DX body? Are you getting similar bokeh etc like 55-300? Thanks for the tips, and looks like you all got some very nice shots. I sold it to a friend, when I got my Sigma 150-500 and Tamron 70-200. The results are very satisfying for what this lens costs. I have always shot handheld with wide open aperture at 300mm. I have used this lens for a number of close up shots of dragonflies, butterflies, insects and such. It works but a better option would be to use a "D" lens with a manual focus ring (like the super-cheap AF 50mm f/1.8D), again at f/8 or smaller.īottom line: it can be made to work but a reversed prime, or a prime on extension tubes (or both together), or best yet a dedicated macro lens, will give much more satisfactory results. With this setup, you will lose all electronic contacts (so no TTL metering) and the lens will default to full open (f/4.5 up to f/5.6 depending on what focal length you've dialled in). I have also used this lens mounted on some cheap Fotodiox extension tubes. There are many more in my photostream, just search it for "dragonfly". I found the best results with:ġ) lens just a little farther than the minimum focus distanceĤ) remote shutter release (or use the self timer)ĥ) keep the aperture narrow - f/8 or f/11 or so - for deeper depth of fieldĮxample below. ![]() The minimum focus distance is very long, unfortunately. I've used it for taking photographs of dragonflies, if that counts. Anyone use this lens for near-macro photography? Any tips?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |