May I ask the difference between the Tamron 90/2.8 Macro and the 90mm 2.8 SP Macro USD?
1408132
The USD is the Newest verision; the main difference is the VR "Vibration Reduction" which cuts down camera shake. Without the VR, most of the time you need a tripod to take good clear photo's; having the VR cuts down the amount of needing a tripod. Hope that helps
1408133
Sp stands for superior performance. Meaning the lens produces extremely accurate and sharp images.
1578624
In my experience, the 800mm is noticeably better, at least with my copy of the 400mm. The TC option is a lot lighter way to get to 800mm, though.
2156713
Not really... It has a minimum focal length of 13 inches zoomed out and about 8 feet when zoomed all the way in. As far as a true macro lens goes, I would I use the Tamron 90 mm macro. In addition if you use the +1, +2, +4, +10 close-up lenses, you can get really really close.
1756269
As a professional photographer myself, I weighed both options heavily prior to purchasing the Sigma 70-200 which I absolutely love! The quality is amazing. I did ask other photographers who owned the tamron lens and paid the cheaper price but defined the sigma lens as the better deal. One of the main reasons is construction of the lens. They reported the tamron lens having more problems after a few years and going 'soft' due to the plastic casing whereas the sigma didn't-making it a better choice for the money. I think the sigma lens will pay for itself this year.
2108171
I find the extra zoom you get on the Tamron to be very useful. The quality between the 2 is very close so I would go with the Tamron. For me the Tamron 18-270mm rarely leaves my camera.
1533866
You have 10mm more with the Tamron. You have twice the size aperture comparing 2.8 to 4. That is a huge huge difference. I tested mine in detail at the center and some spots around the corner AT THE SAME APERTURE with my Nikon 24-120, it is every bit as sharp under high magnification. I did quite a scientific comparison. If you know the outstanding optical quality of the Nikon 24-120, you'll be really impressed.
2058089
The quality of the 60-250 is stellar but low light sports is not it's best use. If the Tamron has excellant optics, the f2.8 should be better for your needs. Check The lens reviews to see how the Tamron performs wide open. DXO Mark is informative.
135635
If you want versatility, I'd definitely go with the 18-270 lens. I absolutely love mine. I'd also look at the 16-300 Tamron as well. It's a couple hundred dollars more, but I feel well worth the investment.
1533863
Tamron pros: light, sharp, f 2,8 inexpensivecons: only for crop sensors, autofocus motor a little loud when searching for focus(has not bother me)CanonPros; EF for full and crop sensor, sharp, Cons; F4, shorter zoom, more expensive, heavier. I would recommend reading the reviews at the digital picture. Note, the VC version of the Tamron is not as sharp as the non-VCIt comes down to this, if you are going to stay with crop sensor, get the tamron
1350283
There is two ways of getting your S/N#: (1) On the len's focus ring, you will see "A009N-xxxxxx" (just on the left of MAKE IN JAPAN"). P.S. The xxxxxx is etched onto the lens. (2) The S/N# is on the top left corner of the original tamron box. It is kind of big. P.S. I have to cut it out from the box in order to get the current $100 rebate from Tamron. If you cannot find it, you should bug the seller on why. May be it is gray market, or second hand. Good luck.KC
650645
I have both lenses... the Canon 400 prime is one of the sharpest lenses ever made. I would however never use it with a converter... you will increase the f stop to much, at least for me. I would not replace the 400 prime with the Tamron. If I was buying new I would say its a toss up. The Tamron is soft wide open. The 400 cropped gives better results at least for me. I would however take the Tamron over the older Canon 100-400 zoom.
1609775
PD thank you for the great review. What do you guys think about the new Tamron 70-200mm ?
1100153
Thank you for your time. In regards to your inquiry, the Tamron lens is in fact an AF lens. Please feel free to contact us at 800-991-3350 with any additional questions.
838886
I find the 85mm a bit faster in focusing *if* you're a fair amount of distance from your subject, as is intended with what's essentially a portrait lens. If you try to squeeze a macro shot out of it, the auto-focus just grinds back and forth trying to get a lock. That said, I have an older model 50mm 1.4 and never found the speed of focus (with a D3S and D800) to be outrageously slow, so take that into consideration with my answer.
916479
So despite it being a macro there's no problem with regular focusing?The 50mm 1.8 is really shoddy build quality, I think you're thinking of that. The 50mm 1.4 (3 times the price) is quite sturdy.I use the 28-105mm (the cheap one, not the L glass) I got this around the same time my friend got the 28-135, which looks like a better lens on the surface, yet he hated his and sold it. It's a much larger lens physically, while the 28-105 is really small, so that's something to consider. I also felt like mine focused better, although that wasn't an objective test. And it's half the price, which is nice. Something to consider So despite it being a macro there's no problem with regular focusing?The 50mm 1.8 is really shoddy build quality, I think you're thinking of that. The 50mm 1.4 (3 times the price) is quite sturdy.I use the 28-105mm (the cheap one, not the L glass) I got this around the same time my friend got the 28-135, which looks like a better lens on the surface, yet he hated his and sold it. It's a much larger lens physically, while the 28-105 is really small, so that's something to consider. I also felt like mine focused better, although that wasn't an objective test. And it's... » Read More So despite it being a macro there's no problem with regular focusing?The 50mm 1.8 is really shoddy build quality, I think you're thinking of that. The 50mm 1.4 (3 times the price) is quite sturdy.I use the 28-105mm (the cheap one, not the L glass) I got this around the same time my friend got the 28-135, which looks like a better lens on the surface, yet he hated his and sold it. It's a much larger lens physically, while the 28-105 is really small, so that's something to consider. I also felt like mine focused better, although that wasn't an objective test. And it's half the price, which is nice. Something to consider « Show Less
2228078
There are 2 lenses with similar names. The newest is the 18-250 f 3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM. The older lens does not have the MACRO in the name. The newest lens has better Macro capabilities and is smaller and lighter. I got the newest lens and I love it. See www.dpreview.com for a review of the lenses.
1011661
Hi thomyi, you may try checking on the link below for the direct comparison between the two lenses. -Elyhttp://store.sony.com/gsi/webstore/WFS/SNYNA-SNYUS-Site/en_US/-/USD/ViewProductCompareService-Show?CategoryID=on0KmUBxnZQAAAFEYhlScEcW