The new Tamron 60mm f/2 macro

I definitely absolutely positively want one of these.
http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/as...optest_909.pdf

Neil Harrington wrote:
I definitely absolutely positively want one of these.
http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/as...optest_909.pdf



It's abilities aside, the working distance with short (50-60mm) macros
blocks a lot of ambient light...

For portraits with a cropped sensor, could be great if it is smooth
enough in bokeh.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:
I definitely absolutely positively want one of these.
http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/as...optest_909.pdf



It's abilities aside, the working distance with short (50-60mm) macros
blocks a lot of ambient light...

But when you actually take pictures, it's the same as using a 90 on FF.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Neil Harrington wrote:
I definitely absolutely positively want one of these.
http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/as...optest_909.pdf

Canon has a 60mm macro too in its EF-S range (for APS-C cameras), and
it's seldom mentioned in Canon forums, where everyone seems to use the
100mm Canon, or similar lenses from Tamron/Sigma.

What are the benefits of a 60mm lens for macro work? And of an f/2
aperture when shallow depth of field is a usually a problem?
--
Bertrand

Ofnuts wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote:
I definitely absolutely positively want one of these.
http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/as...optest_909.pdf

Canon has a 60mm macro too in its EF-S range (for APS-C cameras), and
it's seldom mentioned in Canon forums, where everyone seems to use the
100mm Canon, or similar lenses from Tamron/Sigma.

What are the benefits of a 60mm lens for macro work? And of an f/2
aperture when shallow depth of field is a usually a problem?

The wide aperture gives more light for framing & focusing and more
precise focusing.

Probably easier to design and less expensive, and meets the old standard
of a 90mm macro lens on full frame. Nikon has a new DX 60mm f/2.8 for
about $500 versus the FX 105 for about $900.

If you are working on a copy stand for documents, the shorter focal
length is easier to work with (no ladder needed). If you don't need
reach for chasing shy bugs, shorter focal lengths will give high
magnification more easily (relates to cost & simpler design constraints).

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:
I definitely absolutely positively want one of these.
http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/as...optest_909.pdf



It's abilities aside, the working distance with short (50-60mm) macros
blocks a lot of ambient light...

Not with this one, according to Tamron. They say its working distance is
about equal to that of the longer macro lenses. The front element is right
up front, rather than deeply recessed as it is on my Tamron 90 and Tokina
100.


For portraits with a cropped sensor, could be great if it is smooth enough
in bokeh.

Yes. And I love that f/2 business.

The Pop Photo review has it wrong though when they call it a "full framer."
It's for APS-C format, like any other Tamron Di II lens.

Pop Photo isn't as careful of its facts as it was when Herb Keppler was
running it, I've noticed a number of times.

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:
I definitely absolutely positively want one of these.
http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/as...optest_909.pdf


It's abilities aside, the working distance with short (50-60mm) macros
blocks a lot of ambient light...

But when you actually take pictures, it's the same as using a 90 on FF.

Not for macro. 1:1 is 1:1 (a 4mm grain of rice images to 4mm on the
sensor regardless of the focal length).

And you'll be closer, so more blocked light.

"Ofnuts" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:
I definitely absolutely positively want one of these.
http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/as...optest_909.pdf

Canon has a 60mm macro too in its EF-S range (for APS-C cameras), and it's
seldom mentioned in Canon forums, where everyone seems to use the 100mm
Canon, or similar lenses from Tamron/Sigma.

What are the benefits of a 60mm lens for macro work?

Often I find my 90 or 100 give me less field of view than I would like at a
comfortable working distance. Not for bugs and flowers of course, but for
copying a painting (for example) when I don't need much magnification but
want the corner-to-corner definition, flat field and distortionlessness of a
macro lens.

And of an f/2 aperture when shallow depth of field is a usually a problem?

I don't think anyone would use it wide open when doing macro, but it would
be very nice when doing portraiture. And at 90mm equivalence the 60 would be
ideal for that.

Neil Harrington wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:
I definitely absolutely positively want one of these.
http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/as...optest_909.pdf


It's abilities aside, the working distance with short (50-60mm) macros
blocks a lot of ambient light...

Not with this one, according to Tamron. They say its working distance is
about equal to that of the longer macro lenses. The front element is right
up front, rather than deeply recessed as it is on my Tamron 90 and Tokina
100.

On my Minolta it is deeply recessed EXCEPT when taking macro. Then it's
way out there.

I just checked my Minolta 100mm f/2.8 macro and focus @ 1:1 is at about
340mm from the film plane. Lots of room to get light on the subject.

Per dpreview the "working distance" at 1:1 of the 60mm Tamron is 100mm
which I assume is from the front element. That means the camera is
closer, so more ambient light is blocked (esp. considering the
photographer's head).



For portraits with a cropped sensor, could be great if it is smooth enough
in bokeh.

Yes. And I love that f/2 business.

The Pop Photo review has it wrong though when they call it a "full framer."
It's for APS-C format, like any other Tamron Di II lens.

Pop Photo isn't as careful of its facts as it was when Herb Keppler was
running it, I've noticed a number of times.

Paul Furman wrote:
Ofnuts wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote:
I definitely absolutely positively want one of these.
http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/as...optest_909.pdf

Canon has a 60mm macro too in its EF-S range (for APS-C cameras), and
it's seldom mentioned in Canon forums, where everyone seems to use the
100mm Canon, or similar lenses from Tamron/Sigma.

What are the benefits of a 60mm lens for macro work? And of an f/2
aperture when shallow depth of field is a usually a problem?

The wide aperture gives more light for framing & focusing and more
precise focusing.

Probably easier to design and less expensive, and meets the old standard
of a 90mm macro lens on full frame. Nikon has a new DX 60mm f/2.8 for
about $500 versus the FX 105 for about $900.

Yes, but the 105 is VR while the 60 isn't, as far as I can tell, and on
the Canon side of the fence, the 60mm isn't much less expensive than the
100mm (the IS-less version, just replaced by a IS one).



If you are working on a copy stand for documents, the shorter focal
length is easier to work with (no ladder needed). If you don't need
reach for chasing shy bugs, shorter focal lengths will give high
magnification more easily (relates to cost & simpler design constraints).

OK...

--
Bertrand