PIX 2015

Macro ?'s - 1:1 or 1:2? Tamron 90 or older Vivitar 90/Kiron 105? Raynox 250?

Started Jul 29, 2014 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
Big Swifty
Regular MemberPosts: 224Gear list
Macro ?'s - 1:1 or 1:2? Tamron 90 or older Vivitar 90/Kiron 105? Raynox 250?
Jul 29, 2014

I’m having an infrequent ‘photography care package’ sent down to me in South America from the US w/ the XF-14, 8mm fisheye, a bag, and a few small accessories. Not looking forward to paying Customs 25% of value and shipping so I'm budget conscious on this last purchase.

I’m interested in trying out macro photography and scored a gently used Raynox-250 on ebay for less than $50 but members here advised I look into an actual macro lens. Not interested/can’t afford the XF-60 at the moment due to $ already spent on other lenses so I'm looking at legacy glass. I was originally looking at Nikkor 50/55’s but research and advice has led me to primes in the 90-105mm range.

I’ve narrowed it down to the well regarded Tamron 90, either f/2.5 or 2.8. The older 2.5’s are only 1:2, while the 2.8’s are 1:1. Buying an extension tube to go to 1:1 makes as much sense as buying a newer, 1:1 version without tubes. My instinct is to go all the way and get a true macro 1:1 lens instead of a ‘close-up’ 1:2, but considering the 1.5x crop factor of the X-E1 sensor, is 1:2 going to be as noticeable as it would be on a full frame sensor? I found a good deal on a 2.5 (1:2) Tamron that includes a Fuji X adapter but I wonder if I should just spend the little one time extra $ and get the 2.8 (1:1).

Research also has me looking at some late 1970’s macros such as the Vivitar 90mm f/2.8 and a Kiron 105mm f/2.8, all of which are 1:1, have excellent reviews, and fit my budget. There's also an Elicar V-HQ 90mm 'super' macro that (some say) is 1.25:1. Since AF is not a possibility using an adapter getting a newer Tamron with AF seems a waste of $, but perhaps is the better option because it's newer?

Given the option of getting a Tamron 90 2.8 or one of the older Vivitars/Kirons/Elicars at roughly the same price what would you go with? Is the difference between 1:2 and 1:1 going to matter much on my X-E1 allowing me to consider the older 1:2 Tamrons? Any thoughts on the Vivitar/Kiron/Elicar regarding preference, flare or anything else? Are any of these options going to render the Raynox-250 pointless/redundant (and something I should consider selling in the states instead of shipping) or is it worth keeping for use on the XF 55-200 or even on the macro?

 Big Swifty's gear list:Big Swifty's gear list
Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Samyang 8mm F2.8 UMC Fisheye Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS +6 more
Fujifilm X-E1
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow