Tamron introduces new 60mm F2 macro - Sony mount!

markolw

Leading Member
Messages
532
Reaction score
0
Location
US
Tamron has just introduced the SP AF60mm f/2 Di II Macro 1:1 lens, one of the fastest Macro lenses available. Because of its large aperture (which Tamron says is 1 stop faster than most macros that top out at f/2.8) portrait shooters can take advantage of its limited depth of field for creative and flattering effects. Tamron also claims a 1:1 working distance of 100mm—a more generous working distance than other Macro lenses. Two low dispersion elements are said to compensate for aberrations and provide for high image quality while the company also says it has taken "meticulous countermeasures against ghosting and flare." Focus is internal, and the lens is a relatively lightweight 14.1 oz. The Tamron 60mm f/2 Di II Macro will be available in July for around $569.

Adorama is taking pre-orders already
http://www.adorama.com/TM602MAX.html

Full press release:
http://www.adorama.com/alc/news/11690

--

Mark
http://www.olwickphotography.com
 
Best to wait for a review on the Tamron 60 f/2 macro before buying. Not sure what's up with the f2.0, as the depth of field at f2.0 would be whisker thin and not suitable for macro photography at all.
--Phil
 
Best to wait for a review on the Tamron 60 f/2 macro before buying.
Not sure what's up with the f2.0, as the depth of field at f2.0 would
be whisker thin and not suitable for macro photography at all.
--Phil
--
????????? It doesnt mean you have to use it at f2.0
 
Best to wait for a review on the Tamron 60 f/2 macro before buying.
Not sure what's up with the f2.0, as the depth of field at f2.0 would
be whisker thin and not suitable for macro photography at all.
--Phil
I'm sure they're trying to make an equivalent of what the "portrait macro" was on film, 90mm. The F/2 is nice to have if using it for portraits.

If 50-90 is the generally accepted APS-C portrait range, I believe 60mm is a more useful focal length than 50 for portraits (90mm equivalent). Generally I prefer 70, but it's still better.

Recently I sold my 50/1.4, and got the Pentax 70/2.4 for portraits.
 
No one uses macro lenses wide open for macro shots, you always stop down to f8-f16 or so.

However this lens would double as a fast portrait lens/low light lens, which makes it quite versatile.
 
No one uses macro lenses wide open for macro shots, you always stop
down to f8-f16 or so.

However this lens would double as a fast portrait lens/low light
lens, which makes it quite versatile.
I don't think the 60mm needs to be F2 to be a portrait lens. The DOF at f2 is so very shallow that I doubt most would use it at maximum aperture for this purpose.

Below is a photo I took with a 35mm lens at f2.0 which has a greater DOF than the Tamron 60mm would have. OK for eye shots I guess.
-Phil

a700, 35mm @ f2.0

 
specifications says "full time manual focus", but doesn't say there is an in-lens motor for sony mount.
that would be a first!
I thought it was impossible when using the body autofocus motor.
or, there is an in-lens motor instead...

--
Obscure Boundless Individual
(See my profile for equipment and photo gallery)
 
It seems silly to argue that 60mm at f/2 is bad for portraits, when the real portrait lenses, the 85mm f/1.4 and 100mm f/2 are quite commonly used wide open. Most of the time, I stop the 85mm to f/2, and I love the DOF the 100mm gives wide open. Heck, even take the zeiss 135mm at f/1.8.. WAY shallower than 60mm at f/2. No, this lens make alot of sense for portraits actually.
--
My ever-growing flickr gallery:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dsbphotography
 
No one uses macro lenses wide open for macro shots, you always stop
down to f8-f16 or so.

However this lens would double as a fast portrait lens/low light
lens, which makes it quite versatile.
I don't think the 60mm needs to be F2 to be a portrait lens. The DOF
at f2 is so very shallow that I doubt most would use it at maximum
aperture for this purpose.
Below is a photo I took with a 35mm lens at f2.0 which has a greater
DOF than the Tamron 60mm would have. OK for eye shots I guess.
-Phil

a700, 35mm @ f2.0

Phixel, did you take that photo out in the wild?

What some of us were thinking was using the lens for portrait photography, not figurines.
 
--

" Most of the time, I stop the 85mm to f/2, and I love the DOF the 100mm gives wide open. "

Me too. Some of my best stuff is with my 85 at f2.
 
It seems silly to argue that 60mm at f/2 is bad for portraits, when
the real portrait lenses, the 85mm f/1.4 and 100mm f/2 are quite
commonly used wide open. Most of the time, I stop the 85mm to f/2,
and I love the DOF the 100mm gives wide open. Heck, even take the
zeiss 135mm at f/1.8.. WAY shallower than 60mm at f/2. No, this lens
make alot of sense for portraits actually.
--
My ever-growing flickr gallery:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dsbphotography
Would you post an example please?
--Phil
 
No one uses macro lenses wide open for macro shots, you always stop
down to f8-f16 or so.

However this lens would double as a fast portrait lens/low light
lens, which makes it quite versatile.
I don't think the 60mm needs to be F2 to be a portrait lens. The DOF
at f2 is so very shallow that I doubt most would use it at maximum
aperture for this purpose.
Below is a photo I took with a 35mm lens at f2.0 which has a greater
DOF than the Tamron 60mm would have. OK for eye shots I guess.
-Phil

a700, 35mm @ f2.0
The distance from camera-to-subject plays a huge role in the DOF of any lens. The DOF is so shallow in your shot because you're inches away from the subject. A 60mm lens at 10 feet away is not too shallow for portrait work at f/2.

Given that it's a macro lens, it should be a stellar performer wide open too! I may have to put this lens on the list.

--
Newest gallery: http://www.pbase.com/gipper51/portraits
http://www.pbase.com/gipper51/root
Gear listed in profile.
 
Since Sony and Tamron are fairly close, would it be possible that Sony will release their own version in the future, like the 11-18mm lens?

I probably won't be buying this lens, but I'm just curious. :)
 
Perplexed by your argument Phixel.

What about your distance to the subject? That has a direct affect on the total area of in focus.

Having an f/2 aperture is an advantage that makes the lens more versatile overall.

I actually scoffed at the idea of another macro lens so close to the 50mm range at first, until I saw the 100mm minimum focus distance along with a bigger apeture setting. I think those two features make it a viable option which is why Tamron designed it that way.

Sometimes I wonder about you.

Carl
 
Depth of field depends on two things: magnification and aperture.

If the main subject is equally large in the on the sensor and the same aperture is used, depth of field is identical irrespective of focal length.

There is some confusion with regards to smaller sensors having greater depth of field, but that would be because for a framefilling shot magnification is naturally less on a small sensor than on a large one.
 
That should be a nice lens. It "serves" as a 90/2, hopefully its not ridiculously sharp so it can be a good alternative to slower 85mm portraiture lenses.

Its pricey though.
Tamron has just introduced the SP AF60mm f/2 Di II Macro 1:1 lens,
one of the fastest Macro lenses available. Because of its large
aperture (which Tamron says is 1 stop faster than most macros that
top out at f/2.8) portrait shooters can take advantage of its limited
depth of field for creative and flattering effects. Tamron also
claims a 1:1 working distance of 100mm—a more generous working
distance than other Macro lenses. Two low dispersion elements are
said to compensate for aberrations and provide for high image quality
while the company also says it has taken "meticulous countermeasures
against ghosting and flare." Focus is internal, and the lens is a
relatively lightweight 14.1 oz. The Tamron 60mm f/2 Di II Macro will
be available in July for around $569.

Adorama is taking pre-orders already
http://www.adorama.com/TM602MAX.html

Full press release:
http://www.adorama.com/alc/news/11690

--

Mark
http://www.olwickphotography.com
--
Illusion is the first of all pleasures.

Lenses: Mostly primes, a few zooms, several Gs, one CZ and a TC.
Camera: A700, 800si, and an M1
 
When shooting macro, the DOF related to sensor size gets washed out. Macro shooters keeps telling me that for macro, only the aperture counts. They seem to refer to the relative aperture, the aperture to focal length.

I do not fully understand how cropping or crop factor influence macro.

Macro shooters seem to focus more on working distance.

Not my field of expertise.

Frode
 
I agree totally. Most macros are not shot at wide open apertures anyway, because of the extremely limited depth of field. It seems that Tamron wanted to kill two birds with one stone with this lens. The focal length on a crop sensor would be 90mm, which is very close to the ideal 85mm for portarits (full frame equivalent), and the wide aperture is perfect for portraits.
--
FEM2008
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top