[FHPhotographer]

I'm testing out my new Tamron 90mm, and to my eye it looks soft at telephoto distance: . Or am I expecting too much?

It's still within the "return" window to B&H, so I would appreciate any input. Thanks,
Brian
Both at ISO200, f8 @1/500, 100% center crops

[Peter Zack]

Before judging the shots I'd want to see the originals. If these are 100% crops, I think they are fine. The true test would be with a tripod on a stationary subject.

[Miserere]

Yeah, floating fishermen may not be the best target for sharpness testing.

[Marc Langille]

Agreed with Peter on this.

Another question: is this a dedicated macro lens? Some are not as sharp when focusing closer to the far range or infinity. I would try using a tripod, and if it's a macro lens, try some close ups too.

Regards,
Marc

It's really hard to tell, it looks sharp in the foreground and around the edges but it could be a little soft in the center. It can happen, I can't recall hearing of any instances for that lens suffering from it.
What does it look like when you zoom in on the original without cropping?

I would expect F8 to be sharper... but It looks a bit like the water right in front of the tube is a litte sharper... so it is possible the camera focused on the reflection instead of the tubes... or you could have a bit of a ff issue... But as the others have said.... it would be great to see the original.

In other words... I dont know

you probably should not even read this

[konraDarnok]

Shooting into water does weird things to autofocus (is it focusing on the water or the reflections off that water?) -- pick something static. . . and macro -- with a full pixed crop.

[Jewelltrail]

I own this lens and it is a fine lens for Macro and portraits--deadly sharp too. I sometimes use it like a telephoto, usually with nice, sharp results.

But, as many have requested already, you need to produce the original shot if you want an accurate assessment. Because, for example, there is no way of telling upon what part of the frame you had the camera focused in the first place. Though this is a center crop, you could have the AF set to focus elsewhere--not in the center. You did use the AF correct?

[ryan s]

I don't believe I've ever used that lens even near infinity

Focus down to about 5ft or less and go at...well...everything! Sharpness, bokeh, color...you got it. So sharp it would make a sucky portrait lens

[Jewelltrail]

I have tried it at infinity--whole jpg, resized for forum:

[yus]

Shooting into water does weird things to autofocus (is it focusing on the water or the reflections off that water?) -- pick something static. . . and macro -- with a full pixed crop.

To me it looks softer then I would expect it to be for at f8.

"...The Tamron's sharpness only scored a 4.2 on Photodo, while the Vivitar/Tokina 90mm 2.5 scored a 4.6. That is a huge difference in sharpness. ..."kolobob - "??????" Vivitar Series 1 (Tokina; Kiron) 90/2.5 lens
I could not find this Tamron at Photodo anymore

Depends also on your sensor resolution of course. The more pixels you have, the softer it will look. Thought the same optical formula for Vivitar Series 1, Tokina AT-X and Tamron, it depends on the actual glass that the optics was made from, how precisely this particular lens was assembled and the luck.

I would buy Tokina instead because of the test result
Tokina AT-X 90mm f/2.5 Macro MTF data

Here is a detailed review with examples for Tokina [review] ----- Tokina 90mm f/2.5 Macro [Page 1]: Nikon D90 - D40 Forum: Digital Photography Review

[Alfisti]

My god the excuses. Macro lenses do not just go tits up at longer distances, that is far too soft for a lens that is fantastically sharp.

It appears to be front focussing, try a static image on a tripod and see what happens.

[Wheatfield]

My god the excuses. Macro lenses do not just go tits up at longer distances, that is far too soft for a lens that is fantastically sharp.

It appears to be front focussing, try a static image on a tripod and see what happens.

I have two macros that would beg to argue that point. My M50/4 macro is absolutely stellar when focused fairly close, but is somewhat mushy at infinity, and my FA*200/4 macro, while sharp at all distances has the bokeh go really sucky at longer focus distances.

[Marc Sabatella]

that is far too soft for a lens that is fantastically sharp.

Even for a 100% crop? I too would question the focus, but I also wouldn't be leaping to any conclusions based on these images.

[FHPhotographer]

Before judging the shots I'd want to see the originals. If these are 100% crops, I think they are fine. The true test would be with a tripod on a stationary subject.

Here are the originals, no sharpening, etc. Thanks for looking and commenting,
Brian