Originally posted by Transit i did the long and hard comparison between the TM Tamron and my beercan, the FA100/2.8
LBA can also mean change for the sake of it
I have the marvellous Tamron SP90/2.5 MF so the bar was high.
Good price too, lot of nice stuff on TM atm.
speaking of which, is one of us the Michael from Dunedin trying to snaffle the HD55-300 ?
I don't have any true macro lenses at present although the FA-50 1.4 focuses reasonably close, and the Sigma 17-70 focuses VERY close, but it's not a true macro.
I've considered a 50mm macro, but already have a good 50mm prime, and given my budget, I'm trying to make sure my lenses can fulfil multiple uses.
90mm seems reasonable as it's not far beyond the supposedly 'magic' 85mm for portraits.
I've heard some people reckon that macro lenses can be too sharp for portraits, but there seem to be plenty of people in the reviews here who reckon the Tamron 90 is a good portrait lens.
I think 100mm might be starting to get a bit long for portrait situations.
Realistically, I'm probably not going to ever earn any money from doing macro photography, but there's a slight possibility I might be able to with portraits, so in terms of bang-for-buck, I'm thinking 90mm represents pretty good value that might have a slight possibility of being able to pay for itself. Even if it doesn't, it covers two areas of photography I enjoy.
My Sigma 17-70 2.8 - 4.8 paid for itself within a couple of weeks of buying it, more as a result of good luck rather than good planning.