Re: Opinions on the Tamron 90/2.8 Lens
I have this lens, and I love it. Since I have my 24-90mm Pentax, I seem to be using it more for Macro only, and less for general stuff. I can recommend it. For portraiture, it could be too sharp according to a lot of peoples opinions. I did notice one thing that is a bit less: flare. It is possible to notice that. I didnt' do a side by side comparison with a Pentax SMC lens, should do that some time. Before I bought this lens, I have read lens tests of macro offerings of Pentax (100mm) , and Tamron, Tokina and Sigma (90mm). The differences are really minimal. I like the fact that is goes to 1:1 without any additional rings. On Thursday 17 October 2002 21:53, Delano Mireles wrote: Hi all, I was wondering if anyone could provide an opinion on this Tamron lens being used as a portrait lens? I'm thinking of taking the plunge on a serious portrait lens (AF) for about $400. Thanks, Delano -- Frits Wüthrich
Re: Opinions on the Tamron 90/2.8 Lens
I presume you're talking about the 90/2.8 1:1 AF Macro? I've currently got the AF version, and I had the MF version prior to that. Its a superb all round lens, sharp as a tack, and with excellent Bokeh (to my poorly trained eye!). Also, the 1:1 without the use of tubes is quite handy! It generally sells reasonably second hand as well. I dont know how it stacks against similar Pentax glass, as I've never found a pentax macro lens here in Ireland, but I can reccommend it! Cheers, Terry
Re: Opinions on the Tamron 90/2.8 Lens
I was wondering if anyone could provide an opinion on this Tamron lens being used as a portrait lens? I'm thinking of taking the plunge on a serious portrait lens (AF) for about $400. I presume you're talking about the 90/2.8 1:1 AF Macro? [snip] Its a superb all round lens, sharp as a tack, and with excellent Bokeh (to my poorly trained eye!). Now that would be interesting. I've never tried this particular macro lens, although I am familiar with quite a few other Pentax and 3rd-party (VS1, AT-X) macro lenses, but I've found that macro lenses - in general - just don't seem to have very good bokeh (they're usually a little harsh for their bokeh). If one really wants a serious portrait lens (and I personally do like sharp portrait lenses, so a fast 100-ish macro lens might otherwise seem attractive), I wouldn't ordinarily recommend any macro lens for that purpose. It seems to me that using a macro lens as a portrait lens is a compromise (sort of like using a portrait lens with a close-up lens attachment as a macro lens). Again, though, I've never tried this particular macro lens... Fred
