Tamron SP 90mm 2.5 macro adaptall or Canon FD 100mm macro

[brancaleone]

I read good reviews about this lens and I am tempted to buy one. I'd like your comments on how good it is particularly as compared to the Canon fd 100mm macro. Thanks

 

[dynachrome]

I have both versions of the Tamron, the 52B and the 52BB. I also have the New FD version of the 100/4 Macro. All three are very good. The Tamron will give you a brighter image in the finder and will allow it to be used on other cameras with the proper adapter. Both the Tamron and the Canon will only get to 1:2 without additional extension. There are macro lenses in the 90 to 105 range which will allow you to get to 1:1 without any additional extension tubes. Some of these are the Vivitar 90/2.8, Vivitar 90/2.5 (not the Series 1 model), the Vivitar 100/2.8, the Vivitar Series 1 100/2.5, the Kiron 100/2.8, the Panagor 90/2.8.

 

[ozphoto]

Owned the 90mm f2.5 for many years and had the 1:1 extender, it was awesome & performed brilliantly.
It was also a fine performer as a portrait lens as well.

 

[brancaleone]

Thank you,
and what would be the differences between version 52B and 52BB? My interest for the Tamron is increasing as I have different systems and the adapters for m42, Contax and Canon FD.....

 

[Wayne]

I have the older 90mm sp, not sure if that's the one in question but its a fine lens. I bought it for insect macro. It didn't play nice with my Rebel's electronics so I eventually bought a newer zoom lens that did.

 

[Dan Fromm]

I think this and similar questions have been beat to death on mflenses.com. Ask there. As I recall, the consensus of users on that site is that it is very hard to make a mistake when buying a 100 mm +/- macro lens. They're all better than good enough, no point splitting hairs or agonizing over a few more or fewer lp/mm in tests.

 

[Andy38]

Hello,
Don't forget the Tamron SP Adaptall 72B, 90 mm f2,8 (not 2,5)
It reaches 1:1 without extender and is also very shap ; the last version MF.

 

[ozphoto]

Thank you,
and what would be the differences between version 52B and 52BB? My interest for the Tamron is increasing as I have different systems and the adapters for m42, Contax and Canon FD.....

The 52BB had some cosmetic changes, however, it's the exact same lens:

Tamron SP 90mm f2.5 52B

Tamron SP 90mm f2.5 52BB - note the plastic covering of the aperture numbers, and slightly less streamlined than the 52B.

Personally, I stand in the 52B camp for looks (and maybe nostalgia too) but either will perform admirably for you.
The specs are available here: http://www.adaptall-2.com/lenses/52B.html

 

[brancaleone]

I think this and similar questions have been beat to death on mflenses.com. Ask there. As I recall, the consensus of users on that site is that it is very hard to make a mistake when buying a 100 mm +/- macro lens. They're all better than good enough, no point splitting hairs or agonizing over a few more or fewer lp/mm in tests.

Thanks for the tip. I'll have a look there, though I am not a lp/mm peeper, I am already happy knowing that they are good enough.
@Andy38 , the Tamron SP Adaptall 72B, 90 mm f2,8 seems rarer ad pricier, and since for the time being I don't need a 1:1 magnification I think I'll stick to the 2.5 version
@ozphoto , thank you for the adaptall-2 link, very helpful

 

[Dan Fromm]

Thanks for the tip. I'll have a look there, though I am not a lp/mm peeper, I am already happy knowing that they are good enough.
@Andy38 , the Tamron SP Adaptall 72B, 90 mm f2,8 seems rarer ad pricier, and since for the time being I don't need a 1:1 magnification I think I'll stick to the 2.5 version
@ozphoto , thank you for the adaptall-2 link, very helpful

You don't need a lens that will go to 1:1 on its own mount. There are extension tubes ...

For example, my 55/2.8 and 105/2.8 MicroNikkors, both in Nikon AIS mount, go to 1:2 on their mounts. With the appropriate extension tubes, both go to 1:1. I've used 55 mm MicroNikkors since 1971, haven't felt deprived because I have to use an extension tube to shoot from 1:2 to 1:1 with them.

 

[brancaleone]

Hi @Dan Fromm, you are right I was not clear; I meant that now it is not relevant for me to have a 1:1 magnification lens on its own mount, I can live with a 1:2 lens such as the Tamron 90 2,5 and add an extension tube later.
At the end of the day I am not (still) that much into actual macro photograph, and I am looking for a short telephoto lens for general purpose, that if needed I can also use for close ups and details. Here in Italy, due to the coronovirus pandemic, we still have lot of restrictions to go out, therefore I am trying todevote myself to things I’ve never done, such as still life. I would use the lens also for this genre.

 

[wiltw]

The focus mechanism for an AF lens which works in macro ranges is a bit slower than a lens which does not shoot macro. So if you seldom shoot macro, you are better off gettting a conventional (non-macro) AF lens and a set of extension tubes for the times you will shoot macro. The AF speed is a non-issue for manual focus lenses, of course.

The above ('buy conventional, not macro') is particularly true when you do not shoot flat things like postage stamps...macro lenses are usually 'flat field corrected' while conventional lenses do not handle flat objects well when used at very close distances. If your intention is to shoot 3D things at macro distances, you probably would not notice the difference between flat field corrected and non-corrected for flat field.

As for the choice of a 1:1 capable lens vs. a 1:2 capable lens, if your object is not a bit smaller than 24mm x 36mm and you wish to fill the frame with it, you do not need 1:1 (1x) reproduction. And you have to get very very close to the subject in order to get 1:1 scale...so 180mm macro lens allows you to be 1.8x as far as 100mm macro lens, a key consideration for subjects like live insects which scare off when you get too close.

 

[LibraryTroll]

I bought the Tamron SP 90mm 52BB in December 2020 after much study and consideration. I thought the 52BB seemed a better value in being a newer version of the lens and not so costly as the later 72B. I considered all three. Both 52B and 52BB are excellent lenses according to most accounts online that I could find, but I like a few of the features of the 52BB the best. As mentioned earlier, the differences are basically cosmetic, but the two features that gave it the edge for me is the outer bayonet mount lens hood and a 55mm filter thread. I am using it with my Konica SLR system, which uses 55mm filters for most standard lenses so that was a plus. Mine came with the lens hood and I'm a little disappointed with how flimsy the plastic feels. I feel like it could be easily cracked in the camera bag. Even though the lens body is largely made of plastic it still feels like a quality product. I also purchased the matched extension tube so that I can have the 1:1 macro should I have the need. Overall, I'm very pleased with it. I would love to have the Konica 85mm prime to finish out my collection of original primes, but holy hell... I can't afford one. The 52BB fits that focal length area well enough and allows for macro so that is a win win with a significant price savings.

 

[thornhill]

I used to own the Tamron 52B and loved it. However, you might want to google around a bit regarding "sensor reflections" or "purple hot spots". Apparently, it is possible to see reflections of the sensor in the rear element, at least when used on APS-C Pentax bodies. I only ever used mine with film so I can't really speak from first hand experience.

 

[brancaleone]

I used to own the Tamron 52B and loved it. However, you might want to google around a bit regarding "sensor reflections" or "purple hot spots". Apparently, it is possible to see reflections of the sensor in the rear element, at least when used on APS-C Pentax bodies. I only ever used mine with film so I can't really speak from first hand experience.

Thank you, I'll search for this. However, I don't think I will use the lens on a digital camera. I already own a Canon digital system including a macro lens...which I mainly use to scan film, of course

 

[thornhill]

Ha Ha, I wouldn't accuse you of using the lens for digital purposes. However, the lens has a slight reputation in some places like the Pentax Forums lens reviews. Reputation affects value, value affects your wallet. Good luck with your choice.