Is the Tamron 90mm 2.8 Macro a good portrait lens?

cambsno

cambsno

Messages
20,469
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
Like my nifty fifty, and seem to get my best pics using this lens. Keen on getting a macro and the above seems well regarded, although i dont know i will get the use from this to justify the outlay.

One option would be to sell the fifty and use the tamron as a portrait lens, it is a longer length which is not a big problem, but as my son is just 15 months old I do need a reasonably quick focus.

So, would I miss the fifty if i did this?
 
I think it would be considered too much on a cropped camera as you will be pushing a 135mm focal length on your D90
 
Hi Simon

I have used the Tamron 90mm Macro and it’s a very good lens. The Macro being a true 1:1 is handy and I found I could just about fill the frame with a 20p coin. Lighting at this range is very tricky though.

As for using the lens for portrait work. No problem if you are doing head shots. But you may find it a little limited for doing full body length shots as you would need to get a fair way back from your subject on the D90. It is sharp though and the DoF is very nice and controlable so you can drop out you backgrounds without a lot of fuss.

I would see this as a lens to compliment your 50mm not to replace it though.

Here's a seed head I used the 90mm on.



015.jpg
 
As stated earlier this is a cracking lens but probably too long with a crop camera.

Here is a headshot and a 100% crop

Tamron90.jpg


Crop

Tamron90crop.jpg


If you have the space buy it, it is a cracking macro lens too.
 
In addition to the above observations, the autofocus is slow, probably too slow to track a small active child. It does have a focus limit switch which limits the range that it tries to lock focus, but even then it is still slow.
 
Dunno about the AF speed, but maybe the Nikkor f/2.8 60mm Micro is worth checking out?

Or extension tubes, reversing ring or Raynox for the 50mm?

Or the Tamron Adaptall-2 f/2.5 90mm macro -- manual focus and 2nd-hand only for about £100, plus £20 for the mount and an optional extension tube for 1:1. If you don't like it, it's easy to sell and not lose much/anything.
 
I have the mentioned lens in a pentax mount.

I use it as a cracking macro lens, and I love it for portraits too.

My body adds a crop factor of 1.6 but I don't find that I am too far away for portraits.

I'd happily recommend this lens to people.
 
photon said:
Dunno about the AF speed, but maybe the Nikkor f/2.8 60mm Micro is worth checking out?
Click to expand...

I have this lens and it is very, very sharp. Its an excellent portrait lens and a good macro as well. You do have to be careful when using macro as you can get in your own light but that aside its stunning. I think there was one for sale on here a couple of days ago.

Andy
 
I've tried using this lens as a portrait lens and just can't get on with it. Probably more to do with me than the lens itself. I think I'd prefer the fifty and am seriously considering buying one.
 
I had one for many years - it's a blindingly good lens and an excellent range for portraits too

I only replaced it as a) I rarely need macro and b) I wanted a faster lens of similar focal length, hence I bought an 85mm f1.8

It's a rare lens that does more than one job very well indeed

DD
 
The 90mm is a cracking portrait lens (on FF and 35mm) but may be a bit too long for Dx and other crop formats where the 50mm may be a better bet, especially if space is tight. Also worth considering are the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 Macro and the Nikon 105mm f/2.8 Micro and as a compromise on both formats, there are also a Sigma 50mm f/2.8 Macro and the Nikon 60mm f/2.8 Micro (Nikon call their Macro lenses Micro). If you're not in a hurry, keep your eyes open for second hand examples to save a few quid.
 
photon said:
Dunno about the AF speed, but maybe the Nikkor f/2.8 60mm Micro is worth checking out?

Or extension tubes, reversing ring or Raynox for the 50mm?

Or the Tamron Adaptall-2 f/2.5 90mm macro -- manual focus and 2nd-hand only for about £100, plus £20 for the mount and an optional extension tube for 1:1. If you don't like it, it's easy to sell and not lose much/anything.
Click to expand...

I have one FS if you are interested. Sharpness is incredible it does both macro and also excellent portrait. Before this I had a 50mm and it blows this away IMO. The advantage of a macro lens is that children do have a tendancy to run towards the camera and the 60mm will go to 1:1 so will reduce the number of OOF shots. Pic below 60mm.



What a 60mm does not do as well as the 50 is landscape and walkaround, but to be honest you would be better off with a 35mm for that.

PM me if you are interested.
 
If you're going to be doing headshots, then the 90mm will probably be fine, but as you seem to like ti so much I have a feeling you'd miss the 50mm. I'd seriously reccommend a set of extension tubes, that way you can still use your 50mm as a portrait lens, and you'll also be able to get 1:1 macro, all for under £100!

Chris
 
DiddyDave said:
If space is tight and you want a 'portrait' lens - move the sitter - don't simply swap for a wider lens as the perspective will be less flattering

DD
Click to expand...

Not always an option. If you're against one wall and the sitter's against the opposite one, the only option is a shorter lens (OK, you COULD move house but that's not a real option!)
 
Nod said:
Not always an option. If you're against one wall and the sitter's against the opposite one, the only option is a shorter lens (OK, you COULD move house but that's not a real option!)
Click to expand...

The beneficial perspective from a 90mm lens is for head & shoulders - otherwise, by all means use a wider lens

If your house hasn't a big enough room to do a H&S with a 90mm - it's a very very small house

Aside from which - I can't see where the OP said it was for indoor/small room portraiture anyway :shrug:

Spatial issues aside then - 80-90mm is the more classic portrait focal length for the simple reason it's better

DD
 
DiddyDave said:
Spatial issues aside then - 80-90mm is the more classic portrait focal length for the simple reason it's better

DD
Click to expand...

I'll agree with that but only really on 35mm or FF. Surely a more "classic" fl for portraits would be 150 or 180 - on MF (or even longer on 5x4 or bigger)?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top