Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-24-2011, 11:42 AM   #16
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,648
QuoteQuote:
ok, maybe I'm exaggerated a bit However, it is a really sharp lens


I'm looking into a second hand Tamron right now so I thought I'd look at the numbers.

First of all, the numbers for the Pentax 100 macro are better than the 90 Tamron in one place, F5.6 center, and the Tamron is still sharper at the edges. If you use these tests, the tamron is a substantially better lens 13 of 14 categories head to head. The one category the DA-100 comes out on top it's by 13 points out of 2000.

I threw the 77 portrait lens in there, for comparison, generally thought of as one of the best lenses of all time on a Pentax, and you can see, it's clearly better, but, it's not the same length or macro.

Based on these numbers, the Tamron 90 isn't equal to, it's better than the 100. Especially noticeable wide open at F2.8.

I bought the 18-135 WR to cover this range in zoom lenses. I'm not seeing the disadvantage to the Tamron, as the macro in my bag.


Last edited by normhead; 01-24-2011 at 11:48 AM.
01-24-2011, 11:53 AM   #17
Site Supporter
Deimos's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kingdom of Wonder
Posts: 1,708
The Tamron 90 Macro Di is amazing. Both for macro and a longer shots. It is really amazingly sharp.

I also have the K-r, they are great together. I also used it with the Raynox 150 for extra reach which was great
01-24-2011, 10:11 PM   #18
Veteran Member
Jewelltrail's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,180
QuoteQuote:
normhead: I threw the 77 portrait lens in there, for comparison, generally thought of as one of the best lenses of all time on a Pentax, and you can see, it's clearly better, but, it's not the same length or macro.
Norm, I agree the 77 is better in the center, but it clearly loses that advantage @ large apertures, quickly, as you move to the borders--not until 5.6 does it achieve the level of sharpness uniformity the Tamron displays, and even then it does not catch up completely.
01-25-2011, 12:35 AM   #19
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 113
numbers tell its better, but after some use I considering to sell mine and buy a DFA100WR.
I don't know, maybe it's specific to my particular copy of the lens ... but still here are some of my impressions:

1. you should consider that there's no QF and it takes 2 actions to switch between MF and AF - on camera and on lens switch. this is actually very annoying. Sure, it has focus limiter, but with QF I suspect I wouldn't even need one since I can just move it where I want any time I want and then AF would finish the job for me.

2. the PF. those numbers simply don't show them, it's not the same as CA. Some of my images have strange purple in bokeh even at the center which I suspect is a PF, and there's apparent PF at the edges in high contrast situations. I don't know if DFA is the same though, it might be ...

3. my copy has the focusing ability decreased after some time. basically now I have to adjust the focus correction in K-x's debug menu. But even adjusted, good focus is not guaranteed on far objects, I have to focus manually to get a sharp shot at wide apertures. Maybe it's because of the plastic build...

4. the front lens element is too deep in a tube. DFA100 has the same feature but judging by the pictures, it's not as deep as Tamron's. This and longer focal length means that closer macro is possible with built in flash.

01-25-2011, 01:16 AM   #20
Veteran Member
Jewelltrail's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,180
QuoteQuote:
olenl: .....but after some use I considering to sell mine and buy a DFA100WR.

Well, without a focus limiter on the Dfa, you may be sorry--that lens is known for hunting. I do not miss a QS on the Tamron--it is virtually just as quick to switch from AF to MF and back again.
01-25-2011, 08:02 AM   #21
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,648
QuoteQuote:
Norm, I agree the 77 is better in the center, but it clearly loses that advantage @ large apertures, quickly, as you move to the borders--not until 5.6 does it achieve the level of sharpness uniformity the Tamron displays, and even then it does not catch up completely.
It certainly looks at a lens to use at F5.6. It's kinda of like that kids tale "When she was good she was really really good and when she was bad she was horrid." WHo woulda though a lens would be like that? I guess the thing is, with the image quality sooo good at 5.6 it would be tempting to buy a copy , weld the lens to 5.6 and make do. I guess that's why it's a portrait lens. In a conventional studio style portrait, all the border is a backdrop.. hardly worth wasting good focus on.
01-25-2011, 10:17 AM   #22
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,648
I just went through the stuff at photozone, as much as i could tolerate in one sitting. SO long story short, if there was one combination of lenses to buy, I'd probably go 16-50 and 60-250 zooms, very good numbers across the board, and better almost all the primes I looked at. I mean really look at the numbers for the 200 prime and the 60-250 at 200 side by side. The f2.8 is the only thing that could sell you the prime.

For the absolute sharpest images possible the 43 Ltd, the 77 and the 31 all have one great center sweet spot that might be worth buying the lens for. The 70mm is also a great lens.

So put a wad of cash in my pocket and send me to the camera store, and given my current lenses, the Tamron 90 ,macro would be my purchase.

Starting from scratch, looking at the numbers. Pentax 10-17, 16-50 , and 60-250 would be my main arsenal. I'd still have my Sigma 120-400 for it's reach and I'd probably still get the 31, 43 and 77 ltds for their sweet spots, but the Tamron 90 would still fit as the macro lens or fast mid-prime even though the 60-250 would surpass it in it's role as a prime after f4.

Of course all final decisions would depend on the actual performance of said lenses on my camera. But that to me looks like a lens bag that could do some serious damage.. not to mention require the use of a sherpa.

Now someone will point me to some other lens comparison site, and I'll have to do it all over again, with a new bunch of lenses.

Last edited by normhead; 01-25-2011 at 10:25 AM.
01-25-2011, 12:27 PM   #23
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 113
ok I just checked it again.

good news (for me) is that my bf/ff problem has gone somewhere after I removed any focus correction but I didn't yet try with far away focusing.

So the main problem I see with my Tamron 90 is that at wide aperture it has weird fringe problem.

If the stuff I shoot is highly reflective, I can see purple fringe on white area around black area, anywhere. This goes away at smaller aperture.

Also, when shooting black on white (for instance), there is a slight purple-ish halftone in the close bokeh and yellow-ish in far bokeh.

This problems seems to go away at around f/6 or maybe a little wider... thus this could be a non issue for macro since nobody shoots macro at these apertures anyway.

However, other than that, the resolution of f/2.8 is pretty good, indeed.

So my questions are

1. Do other owners of Tamron 90 have this problem? i mean purple/yellow bokeh and PF at wide apertures

2. Does DFA100WR have any similar problem?


Last edited by olenl; 01-25-2011 at 12:32 PM.
01-25-2011, 01:38 PM   #24
Site Supporter
Deimos's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kingdom of Wonder
Posts: 1,708
ive noticed some PF but only really when shooting into the light or highly reflective surfaces in bright sunlight
01-25-2011, 02:08 PM   #25
Veteran Member
Jewelltrail's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,180
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I just went through the stuff at photozone, as much as i could tolerate in one sitting. SO long story short, if there was one combination of lenses to buy, I'd probably go 16-50 and 60-250 zooms, very good numbers across the board, and better almost all the primes I looked at. I mean really look at the numbers for the 200 prime and the 60-250 at 200 side by side. The f2.8 is the only thing that could sell you the prime.

For the absolute sharpest images possible the 43 Ltd, the 77 and the 31 all have one great center sweet spot that might be worth buying the lens for. The 70mm is also a great lens.

So put a wad of cash in my pocket and send me to the camera store, and given my current lenses, the Tamron 90 ,macro would be my purchase.

Starting from scratch, looking at the numbers. Pentax 10-17, 16-50 , and 60-250 would be my main arsenal. I'd still have my Sigma 120-400 for it's reach and I'd probably still get the 31, 43 and 77 ltds for their sweet spots, but the Tamron 90 would still fit as the macro lens or fast mid-prime even though the 60-250 would surpass it in it's role as a prime after f4.

Of course all final decisions would depend on the actual performance of said lenses on my camera. But that to me looks like a lens bag that could do some serious damage.. not to mention require the use of a sherpa.

Now someone will point me to some other lens comparison site, and I'll have to do it all over again, with a new bunch of lenses.
Norm, no need to go to another site to have your conclusions thrown into turmoil. Just look, for example, @ the numbers for the Tamron 17-50 2.8 & Sigma 17-50 2.8. I & many others did, and chose them over the 16-50 2.8. Also, take a look at the amazing sharpness uniformity for the Da 40 2.8. This is just for starters, but you could look at the Sigma 8-16's numbers too.

QuoteQuote:
normhead: It's kinda of like that kids tale "When she was good she was really really good and when she was bad she was horrid." WHo woulda though a lens would be like that?
That is a funny one--
01-25-2011, 02:12 PM   #26
Veteran Member
Jewelltrail's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,180
QuoteQuote:
olenl:
1. Do other owners of Tamron 90 have this problem? i mean purple/yellow bokeh and PF at wide apertures

2. Does DFA100WR have any similar problem?
I do not have any PF issues with my Tamron 90mm. If you ask me, "Can you make it PF," then I'll answer, "Sure, of course I can." But does PF detract in any way rom the amazing performance of the lens--no way.

Yes, you can bet, given the same conditions, the PF in the Dfa 100 will be at last as prevalent as in the Tamron.
01-26-2011, 06:33 PM   #27
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,648
QuoteQuote:
Norm, no need to go to another site to have your conclusions thrown into turmoil. Just look, for example, @ the numbers for the Tamron 17-50 2.8 & Sigma 17-50 2.8. I & many others did, and chose them over the 16-50 2.8. Also, take a look at the amazing sharpness uniformity for the Da 40 2.8. This is just for starters, but you could look at the Sigma 8-16's numbers too.
Is there anyone out there who would actually like to help me simplify my choices?
So I lucked out and got a Tamron 90 macro second hand. It was going to be years before I could afford the 100 macro WR. Thanks for all the input.
01-26-2011, 07:06 PM   #28
Site Supporter
Deimos's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kingdom of Wonder
Posts: 1,708
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Is there anyone out there who would actually like to help me simplify my choices?
get a tamron 17-50 2.8 new or used $300-400

it is fantastic. done



I also have the tamron 90 macro and love it! (buy a raynox 150 or 250 trust me)

Enjoy
01-26-2011, 07:30 PM   #29
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,648
The bottom end of my lenses is covered by the DA 18-135 ED DC. Due to the fact that I carry my gear with me, having one lens to cover that range saves me trouble. That with my Pentax 10-17 and Sigma 120-400 gives me 10-400 with very little overlap. I'm just looking for a few good primes, and only ones that give me top end resolution. I have my DA 50 1.7 which is great, now the Sigma 90. Hard to say where to go next.

As Jeweltrail points out, the DA 40 2.8 looks great. But those LTD's around f4-f 5.6 give you that ultra crisp center. What is more worthwhile center sharpness that will knock the sox off anything at one f specific f-stop, or better overall numbers and more consistency center to edge with acceptable numbers overall. SHouldn't everybody have that one lens that can blow the socks off anything in their bag, just in case the opportunity to use it ever comes up? I think that 31 f1.8 LTD with the 2345 (out of 2350) rating at f4 might be the next best choice for me. Or even the 77 1.8, over 2300 at both F4 and F5.6. I need someone to slap me in the face and say.. stop looking at 2300, it dosn't really mean anything. That's the trouble, as soon as you see numbers, you start setting standards for yourself, meaningful or not.

So who here can look at an image and tell the difference between 2200 and 2350?
01-26-2011, 09:41 PM   #30
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Posts: 60
I haven't built up a collection of limiteds to compare, but the Tamron 90mm macro is my first AF prime that I got, and my opionion of it is that it is VERY sharp at all apertures that I have used so far (2.8- ~16). I faced the Pentax 100 vs. Tamron 90 dilemma and after an extra 300 bucks in my pocket and seeing some of my first macro pictures with the Tamron, I feel just fine with the decision. Not to mention the focus limiter has been a big plus for everything non-macro like portraits, and I imagine one day I'll be grateful for the aperture ring too. If you can't mount the nikon version to your camera and you're interested in macro, it may be worth the investment to get the pentax-mount Tamron.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
90mm, 90mm f2.8 macro, k-mount, lens, macro, pentax, pentax lens, slr lens, tamron, tamron 90mm f2.8
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Panagor 90mm f2.8 Macro, Pentax K Mount CollectriC Sold Items 1 01-09-2010 09:17 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax K100d + 18-55mm + Tamron 70-300mm; Tamron 90mm Macro jake123 Sold Items 4 11-09-2009 12:51 PM
Tamron 90mm F/2.5 macro +P/KA mount going rate. evilcat Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 04-23-2009 10:20 AM
For Sale - Sold: For Sale: Tamron SP 90mm Adaptall 2 Macro with PK/A Mount and 1:1 EX. Tube Miguel Sold Items 2 12-04-2008 08:28 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:05 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top