- This topic is empty.
Decent Macro lens?
-
Had a flick through a copy of Practical photography mag from the other month I had lying around, and they compare 16 macro lenses across the board Best scores, for Nikon compatibility, were:
Tamron 60mm f/2 Di II LD
Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG
Nikon 105mm f/2.8G AF-S VRAll 3 scored 9/10.
Some 8/10 score options:
Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX DG
Tamron 90mm f/2.8 SP AF Di Macro 1:1
Nikon 60mm f/2.8G ED AF-S
Nikon 85mm f/3.5G ED VR DX Micro
Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX IF Macro USM
Tamron 180mm f/3.5 SP Di LD (IF) MacroSorry to tell you Tokina fans, but the Tokina 100mm f/2.8 AT-X PRO DX only scores 6/10, lowest score across the 16 [which also included some Canon only options]
Not sure where people are getting the idea that Tamron have gotten poor. That list certainly show them to be very strong in the macro lens dept.
I recently bought a [used] Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, and it’s the best lens I’ve used to date.
Hard to find a bad macro lens really, with usually not more than a hairs breadth to seperate them with regard to optical quality. Most macro lens would rate in the 90% range on optical quality, and it is easier to make a decision on the basis of working distance, price, or build quality.
Surprised to see the Tokina rate so lowly in that test, and I would suggest there was something wrong with their copy. I’ve long since sold my own copy, and there was nothing to seperate it optically from any of my other primes, none of which were slouches in the performance stakes. These include lenses such as the 35mm f2, 50mm f1.4, 20mm f2.8 and 85mm f1.4, as well as the 17-55 zoom.
On other fronts, I’ve always failed to notice how rating a lens out of 10 can provide any usefulness, and fear it is responsible for having many lenses branded coke-bottles. This 8 or 9 out of 10 malarkey I feel tells you nothing, and the aspects to distinguish lens quality is split along several variables for me, which comprise:
-centre resolution
-corner resolution
-general contrast level
-chromatic aberrations
-bokeh
-vignetting
-distortion
-overall lens build quality
-ergonomics of the lensI’m sure the original poster may have found a macro lens at this point, but if anyone else is in the same boat, I’ve seen the Sigma 105 go for between 220- 250 on the used market many times, with the other great bargain in the past being the Tokina which went for about 300- 350 new in some places. I always had a soft spot for (but never owned) the Sigma 70mm, which on a crop sensor became a very nice 100mm equivalent for portraits, while still giving you a nice amount of working distance for macro.
I went for the Tamron 90mm in the end. It got the best reviews for the price and was better quality wise than some lenses which were more expensive than it.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
