This may not be my very first lens, but it is my very first lens review. Before purchasing the Tamron 60mm Di2 macro lens, I spent quite a lot of time researching and comparing different comparative lenses. I have a 1.6x cropped Canon SLR and wanted something that delivers high IQ and sharpness and also would perform reasonably well indoors or in low light situations. What lead me to this lens was after a recommendation of the 100mm f2.8 macro, but I thought with the 100mm it would be too much of a zoom lens to be useful in my daily use - so i looked around to find the 60mm EF-S version and also there was a Tamron 60mm with F/2 which caught my eye.
After using the Tamron 60mm for a while and trying to understand the use of macro for the first time... i question my purchase and was wondering if it was even worth it. I did sell my nifty-fifty (some cheap 50mm f/1.8) for this but now wonder if i should return this one as well... It sort of has all the same qualities as the nifty-fifty except that this lens can take macro shots as well.
When it auto-focuses it will take a while if switching from macro to infinity, about a full second and more (seems like an eternity). Compared to my USM 17-55, it suffers a big performance difference; the usm focuses within half a second while this lens will take a full second and some more to refocus. The reason why i sold the 50mm f/1.8 was the very same reason: weird and slow auto-focus performance. I would think the tamron which costed $400-500 would focus better than the $80 50mm, but i was wrong to believe this. I guess a macro lens just has a much wider focusing range, therefore it would only make the tamron slower. On the plus side, the tamron has a beefier manual focusing ring that seems like a breeze to use despite the "cheap" clunky feeling.
I tried taking some portraits to see the sharpness of the lens, under low light the lens' auto focusing does not seem accurate as i found out when i got back to the computer. I'm not sure if these tests are fair but i'll try again during the day and hopefully there will be some redeeming interests for keeping this lens. I've heard so many great things about this lens that i will definitely try it again... i really hope it's as sharp as people say because i'm not seeing it at all.
Shortly later, i used a tripod to compare image quality with the 17-55. After a few tests at all apertures i needed to conclude that the lens is sharp but not sharp enough to blow me away. The canon, indoors, definitely has a clear advantage because of its effective image stabilization and super fast USM focusing. I'd say the Tamron (outside of macro) is somewhat of a step above the 50mm f/1.8 but, for the price, it's an insignificant upgrade.
The next day I spent some time using the lens outside of the house taking photos of the garden and using the macro to my advantage. I have gotten a few good shots outside, but only after finding them from the many photos i took. I tried taking photos of a small flower but without the aid of a tripod the image showed a lot of blur and wasn't a very good impression. With the right amount of light this prime lens does shine outdoors but it's very difficult imo to use.
I've returned indoor to do further testing, I started to see some chromatic aberration after taking photos of a red rocket air blower i had. You can see it slightly on the right side.
After thinking it over I'm going to return this lens and suffer the loss in shipping and the 55mm filter i bought for it.
Here are some pros and cons of this lens:
PROS:
- very light
- sharper than the nifty fifty.
- can act as a regular walk around lens
- good focal length for portraits
- comes with a free hood
- offers 1:1 magnification macro
- large focusing grip for easy manual focusing
- manual focus overriding (useful to refocus if AF doesn't look sharp)
CONS:
- the rear end-cap (too short) will not interchange with my canon lenses nor will the 55mm filter size
- Not the sharpest lens I've seen for $400-500
- chromatic aberration
- slow / loud auto focusing system ("searches" in low light)
- poor indoor performance despite the F/2.0
- not much sharper than my 17-55 zoom for walk around uses
Summary:
- Good for macro, but the price is too high for the IQ and the slower, blind@night, auto focus.
- For $500, you should be expecting more - something sharper than any zoom but it's not.
I am not sure I want a prime lens anymore unless it has image stabilization... i just want a good companion to the 17-55 is i have currently, i guess the search goes on.
No comments:
Post a Comment