[Canada_Rockies]

So what is considered good Macro 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, ect ect.? You guys need to eplain what you guys are talking about to all the people that read these forums but are affaid to ask questions. Thanks

Technically speaking, the original definition of macro was life size or larger on film. The difficulties encountered with lens design and manufacture resulted in a large number of 1:2 lenses (such as my M 100/4) labeled as macro. Now, the macro 1:1 lenses are very, very good indeed. If I were in the market for a macro lens these days, it would be a 1:1 f/2.8.

There is, however, a second side to the macro designation, and that is the combination of high resolution, low distortion and flat field focus at the film/sensor plane. Macro lenses are very highly corrected. This is where most of the expense comes in, not the close focus ability. In these parameters, my old M 100/4 is very, very good indeed.

Zooms that are labeled macro are not true macro lenses. The magnification ratio is perhaps good, but the rest of the qualities required of a macro lens are not there in a zoom. Zooms that are labeled macro, or have a macro setting, such as my A 70-210, should really be labeled close focus instead.

Hope this helps!

[selar]

The original poster shot in his film days with a Vivitar Series 1 90mm f2.5 macro. That lens was a 1:2 macro as well. So the 1:3 offered by the Tamron wouldn't be that far off the mark, with 1.5x crop factor of the dSLR sensor thrown in to the equation. The absolute size of the resolved image does not change, but the size of the image in relation to the sensor area is greater on dSLRs.
However, the Tamron not being a true macro probably lacks flat field imaging, and he might therefore not experience the same corner sharpness.
He'd probably be best off using his VS1 90mm if he still has it, or getting a VS1 105mm f2.5 macro which is true 1:1 on film and better on dSLR. I got this lens as new old stock last year from an ebay seller called TraderJim, who might still have stock left.

[frank]

I think "Macro" isn't a deciding factor between these two lenses. It's the focal length. If you think 50~70mm is more important than 135~200mm, then go for the DA50135. Otherwise go w/ the Tamron.

One thing though, the Tamron 70-200 is very light for its caliber, I'm afraid Tamron used some cheap materials (plastic elements and barrel ...) on this one. And it's not weather sealed, of course it won't have SDM either. These are also deciding factors imo.

Personally I'd go w/ the DA*50-135 for its wider end (more useful on current dSLR cameras, to me at least), SDM, weather sealed barrel, and proven optical performance.

[NeverSatisfied]

Well, looks like my long-lens LBA will be satisfied shortly! Not only will I be keeping the DA*50-135 (I was out this week with it, was I insane?), and the Sigma 70/2.8 Macro, but I will soon be adding the Sigma 100-300/f4 to my collection. Surfed the web late Thursday night, just for the hell of it I googled the Sigma and found some in stock with a well-regarded retailer. I'm crossing my fingers right now as the order is in the "processing" phase. I will be one happy camper when I get that "shipped" e-mail! Not often a person looks forward to Monday!