Tamron 90mm macro -- is version 172E non-BIM? Many questions....

[windsprite]

I've been searching and reading up on a particular lens, but it seems the more I read, the more confused I get, so I'm going to throw out some questions for those who might be kind enough to answer:

The D700 is my main camera, and I'm looking for a combination macro/portrait lens. I wish I could say exactly what I'm going to use it for, but I'm not into any one specific genre. I'll shoot anything. You could say that versatility is my main concern, along with getting the biggest bang for the buck.

I've found a Tamron 90/2.8 macro second hand for around $200. It's the 172E version. The 272E goes for $400 new. I am a cheapskate. I would prefer to pay only $200, but not if I have to take a significant hit in IQ and/or function (yes, I understand "significant" is a subjective word! ).

My understanding is that the 272E has some kind of coating that the 172E lacks. Is it something that will affect the IQ in a lot of situations, or should I not worry?

I've read that there is a non-BIM version of this lens. Is that the 172E? Does the non-BIM lens focus faster?

I've also read that the 272E has lovely bokeh. Is the 172E's about as good?

In your opinion, is the Tamron's bokeh better or worse than the 85/1.8D Nikkor's? If you have both lenses, does one or the other gather dust on a shelf somewhere while the other gets a lot of use?

I recently bought the Tamron 28-75/2.8 (non-BIM) and have been impressed with the IQ. For anyone who has both this lens and the 90/2.8 macro, do you nearly always choose the 90mm over the zoom for portrait shooting? Do you carry both lenses when hiking or traveling? They are pretty close in focal length, and I worry a little about redundancy. To keep down the weight and bulk for hiking and travel, I almost wonder if I shouldn't skip the macro and get a Canon 500D or other closeup filter for whatever telephoto lens I should decide to take along.

Whew. That's a lot of questions! A big TIA to anyone who can answer any combination of them!

Julie

 

[slimandy]

I had a very old version of the Tamron and IQ was excellent. I doubt you'd notice the difference between the 172 and the 272, or at least I can say the 172 won't dissapoint you. The BIM doesn't seem relevent to me, partly because you don't really need it and partly because I use MF most of the time for macro anyway. It is a nice lens for MF. (I prefer to have a BIM but you don't need it).

My main concearn would be if 90mm would give you enough working distance. I much prefer the Sigma 150mm macro. It depends what you shoot.
--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

 

[Snapshott]

I've read that there is a non-BIM version of this lens. Is that the 172E? Does the non-BIM lens focus faster?

I've also read that the 272E has lovely bokeh. Is the 172E's about as good?

In your opinion, is the Tamron's bokeh better or worse than the 85/1.8D Nikkor's? If you have both lenses, does one or the other gather dust on a shelf somewhere while the other gets a lot of use?

Julie

I believe there were 2 versions of the Tamron 90mm f2.8 non-BIM. One with the older style focus ring and a newer one with a focus ring style like the current BIM version. The new non-BIM version has the coating that is supposed to cut down on relections from the digital sensor. I have this version but have no idea if it makes a difference in real world pictures. Sorry I don't have the lens with me to provide the model number right now.

I als have the Nikon 85mm f1.8. I use the lenses for different purposes and do use both lenses. The Tamron 90mm f2.8 has very nice creamy bokeh in my opinion that is hard to beat. I like it much better than the Nikon 85mm f1.8. I don't think the 85mm f1.8 is bad but it's not as cramy as the Tamron.

The Nikon 85mm f1.8 focuses faster than the Tamron 90mm f2.8 because the Tamron has a much longer focus through need for macro focusing. When not shooting macro use the focus limiter on the Tamron to speed things up a bit.
--
Snapshott

 

[windsprite]

I had a very old version of the Tamron and IQ was excellent. I doubt you'd notice the difference between the 172 and the 272, or at least I can say the 172 won't dissapoint you.

Great, that's exactly what I wanted to hear!

The BIM doesn't seem relevent to me, partly because you don't really need it and partly because I use MF most of the time for macro anyway. It is a nice lens for MF. (I prefer to have a BIM but you don't need it).

I asked about the BIM because people say the screw-drive version of the Tamron 28-75 focuses faster than the BIM one, and I do find my old-style Tamron to be a very snappy focuser. I was wondering if the case was the same for the macro lens.

My main concearn would be if 90mm would give you enough working distance. I much prefer the Sigma 150mm macro. It depends what you shoot.

I'm very interested in the Sigma, but for now I want to keep the weight and price down. I rarely shoot insects or other very close-up macros, so I think I should be okay with 90mm. I also shoot four thirds and have got by with a 50mm lens, which an EFL of 100mm. Now that I think about it, though, I do sometimes like to use a 1.4x telecon on that lens, so your point is a good one. I'll have to look into a Kenko telecon for my some of my non-AF-S Nikkors and third-party lenses. An extension tube for my 300/4 AF-S is another possible option for when I want more distance for macro shooting and don't mind schlepping around a big lens.

Thanks very much for your help!

Julie

 

[windsprite]

I believe there were 2 versions of the Tamron 90mm f2.8 non-BIM. One with the older style focus ring and a newer one with a focus ring style like the current BIM version. The new non-BIM version has the coating that is supposed to cut down on relections from the digital sensor. I have this version but have no idea if it makes a difference in real world pictures. Sorry I don't have the lens with me to provide the model number right now.

That's why I had trouble researching this lens, as it seems there are at least three versions, and it's not always clear which one someone is talking about.

From what I can tell just looking at photos, the focus ring of the 172E copy I'm considering looks very different from that of the latest version of the lens. It's got long, sparsely-spaced indentations, rather than the fine gridlike groove pattern of the 272ENII.

I als have the Nikon 85mm f1.8. I use the lenses for different purposes and do use both lenses.

That's good info.

The Tamron 90mm f2.8 has very nice creamy bokeh in my opinion that is hard to beat. I like it much better than the Nikon 85mm f1.8. I don't think the 85mm f1.8 is bad but it's not as cramy as the Tamron.

That's very interesting, too. At the moment the creamiest lenses I own are big telephotos, the 70-200 VR and 300/4 AF-S, so I've been thinking it would be nice to enjoy that kind of bokeh in a shorter, more portable lens. I'm looking at the Sigma 50/1.4 in addition to the Tamron.

The Nikon 85mm f1.8 focuses faster than the Tamron 90mm f2.8 because the Tamron has a much longer focus through need for macro focusing. When not shooting macro use the focus limiter on the Tamron to speed things up a bit.

Yes, I'm finding the 85/1.8 focuses very fast and works great as a super-low-light action lens, which is one reason I never went for the slower-focusing 85/1.4D, as tempting as it is. Owning both those lenses would be a silly redundancy in a way, but since the Tamron is only $200 and does macro, I feel a little better about that purchase. It's good to know the focus limiter does help the AF speed.

I appreciate your taking the time to answer!

Julie

 

[Alnitak]

I also had the earlier version of the Tamron, and can vouch for both its sharpness and bokeh. For $200, I wouldn't hesitate.

I don't have any portrait shots I took with it uploaded, but here is my first macro with that lens -- amazing detail when you blow it up and very sharp.

 

[windsprite]

I also had the earlier version of the Tamron, and can vouch for both its sharpness and bokeh. For $200, I wouldn't hesitate.

I don't have any portrait shots I took with it uploaded, but here is my first macro with that lens -- amazing detail when you blow it up and very sharp.

That looks very good, and on the ancient D100, too!

I ordered the lens yesterday. I should be able to go down to my local camera shop in a few days and take some test images before deciding whether or not to purchase it. I'm still looking for information and experiences related to the lens, if anybody still has comments.

Thanks for posting your sample, Alnitak!

Julie