Help me choose an AF macro lens

TrueLoveOne · Expire: 2013-12-24

Ok, i have several manual macro lenses, but lately i miss focus too often when i use my 5D instead of the Sony with focus peak function.
(i need glasses.... )

So: I have decided to buy a second hand auto-focus macro lens around 100mm for the 5D.

The following 4 lenses (used) all cost around the same amount of money, but really, i do not know anymore which one is the most logical/best choice, simply because i have never used one of these AF macro lenses.

1. Tokina AT-X pro 2.8/100

2. Canon EF USM 2.8/100 (macro)

3. Tamron SP 2.8/90

4. Sigma 2.8/105 EX DG

I am hoping somebody here on the forum has been at this point as well and can tell me more about which one too choose or which one certainly not to choose.

Reading more reviews on the net wasn't helpfull.... somehow you just get the feeling that there are no bad macro lenses. but if that is true i could also get the Cosina plastic fantastic 100mm macro, since i've seen them for sale for around 60 euros! (unfortunately it does not do 1:1 by itself)

Thanks in advance for any advice!

tb_a · Expire: 2019-08-28

I was in a similar situation and went for the Tamron AF 90/2.8 for my Sony A850 FF DSLR as the original Minolta lens was far beyond my budget at that time.
It is said that it's their best lens ever. I was never a real Tamron fanatic and that's my only lens from them and also my only 3rd party lens in AF for my A850 at all. However, the price was the convincing factor.
I never regretted it up to now.
If you like I can make some test shots tomorrow and post them here.

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas

My situation isn't similar, like Thomas's, it's virtually the same. As both an EOS DSLR and a NEX owner, I find that I don't really have a need for an AF macro for the NEX because of its focus peaking feature, but having an AF macro for the EOS would be handy. Especially if I ever buy an FF EOS, which I feel will be in the cards some day.

I look at the four offerings you mention and a few things occur to me. One is the reputation of their manual focus equivalents. In this case, the top three get top marks, two of which I own and can personally vouch for. The Sigma is an unknown for me, but from all I've read and seen, the modern Sigma AF lenses are of overall better IQ and consistent build quality than their earlier manual focus optics. And then there's macro abilities. What is the maximum reproduction ratio? Are they all 1:2, or are any 1:1? A 1:1 macro would stand to get preferential consideration from me.

All things considered, however, I suspect I'd probably do as Thomas has, and spring for the Tamron. My Sp 90mm f/2.5 is one of the sharpest lenses I own, if not the sharpest, and if what Thomas says is true -- about this latest one being their best ever -- then that would make for one amazing lens.

Marek · Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 4:24 am Post subject:

Just avoid that Sigma you mention, OK performance but nothing but a piece of plastic shit, kind of lens without soul (guts Laughing

) too. Had one - sold one

Was not easy for me to sell it too, too much work = ugly worn Sigma focusing ring, +lack of selling experience in these times

Now I am having Canon 180L Macro (alles gute so far Smile

) + consider Zeiss Makro-Planar 100 (MF), could be a strong macro equipment for a macro guy

tb_a · Expire: 2019-08-28

Here are some quick and dirty examples with the Tamron AF 90/2.8 on a 24MP/FF camera (Sony A850).

All shot freehand but Minolta R-1200 TTL Ringflash was used. The focus point was not always the best but I think it can give you some good ideas about the quality of the lens which is from my point of view simply excellent up to 1:1. The first three pictures are followed by an 100% crop to give you a better idea about the actual size of the images.

TrueLoveOne · Expire: 2013-12-24

Thanks all for your input and pictures!

Before i bought my L-lenses i used Tamron SP AF lenses on Canon, and i must say that i've always been very pleased with the results.

However: i must admit that i am drawn to the Canon EF Macro 100, it seems that the optics of this lens (non IS, non L) are the same as the newer IS and L lens.

Can somebody confirm this?

What about the optics of the Tokina? The manual "Bokina" lens (used to have one myself) was and is very high regarded, are these still the same in the AF versions?

Cheers, René!

Langstrum · Joined: 16 Feb 2014 Posts: 351

I've just got the 180L for few weeks and I have to say that I'm really satisfied with it. The most important thing I concern is the focal length since this telephoto lens will keep a good distance to the target and avoid disturbing them. I can't confirm whether this lens is much better than the 100/2.8 Macro or the 100L, but I guess they are not much different by stopping down to f/11 or more.
On A7ii with IBIS, this lens really shines. I just wish that they can remove the AF module and reduce the price since I use MF most of the time.

DSC00951 by Doctor Fox, on Flickr

TrueLoveOne · Expire: 2013-12-24

Great picture!

I know about the 180 L, that is indeed a fantastic piece of glass, but it's also out of my budget!

kds315* · Expire: 2021-03-09

I had the Canon EF 100mm for several years and was always very pleased with the results.
Sold it only since I moved on to Nikon for my UV photography and now with mirrorless, I
only use manual focused lenses.

Paul · Joined: 07 Mar 2007 Posts: 173 Location: Hamburg-Germany

@Tokina
The well known "bokeh-monster" was the 90mm macro lens that I used to have myself.
The 100mm-lens is different ... not THAT bokeh-lens as the 90mm but therefore with better sharpness wide opened.

@Canon
I never liked the look&feel of this lens (having a 40D myself) as well as the results. Cannot specify this exactly.
But compared with those of the

@Tamron
2.8/90 the Canon-Results always seemed to lack something.
I am really very very satisfied by ths lens.
For macro as well as for a short tele work.

@Sigma
The Sigma has longer reach (105 insted of 100/90 mm) but it is quite bigger & heavier than the Tamron.
Not that handsome.
Never had this lens myself (only tried and played in the store) - but from what I read it should be very good too. Read some ads from Sigma from a workshop they made. They used this lens preferred for portrait work. Perhaps that's where this lens lens shines?

Lena · Joined: 24 Apr 2012 Posts: 495 Location: Pl

I own the Tokina and it's a really decent lens in terms of sharpness, color rendition and bokeh. It's also deifinitely not the all plastic thing. On the other hand, I do not consider it an AF lens, since the AF is pretty useless, at least in my copy. It didn't seem to have any FF/BF issues, it is just very slow and misses a lot.