Takumar 100 mm Macro vs Tamrom 90mm Macro

[mr_tibbs2004]

I'm looking at getting another macro lens in the 90-100mm range and I think I have it narrowed down to either the SMC Takumar 100mm f4 or the Tamron 90mm F2.5 BB52. It seems that either of these lenses will be great for not only macro, but for every day life. Should I be leaning towards the Tamron because it's technically faster and I believe a true 1:1 ratio? I do not have an adaptall mount adapter so I would also have to find one to go with the lens if it is not included. Thoughts or other suggestions?

[BrianSVP]

The Takumar is certainly no slouch, but aside from handling (Tak smoothness!) and a slight reach advantage, the Tamron equals or beats it in almost every area, and you have the versatility of the Adaptall mount. If you buy one with the m42 adapter, you can use that in full manual mode using your existing m42 adapter, and if you shoot Full frame Nikon F or Pentax K, you can actually get adapters where you don't have to stop down using the aperture ring.

Just make sure you get a sample without fungus, as the BBAR lenses of that generation are very prone to it.

[marcusBMG]

Tamron adaptall 52B and 52BB are optically the same. 52B is more like the tak in construction and feel. 52BB is lighter but more "plastickey" and has a lighter focus - 52B can be a tad on the stiff side. One other caution re 52BB is that it can be prone to a "lazy iris". You can see my post here on this.
More info here.
Price wise my sense is that these and the tak are at a similar price point typically. There are more of the adaptalls around and you can get lucky.

[mr_tibbs2004]

For shiggles let's throw in the Tokina 90mm f2.5 aka Bokina into the mix as well. It looks like the prices have come down to reality on these lenses from the craze a few years ago. Is that worth looking at as well?

[visualopsins]

The Tamrons do 1:2

Consider the Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron). I like it better than Tamron. A little heavier than Takumar. Vivitar has internal focusing so cannot use Techart AF adapter -- not a problem for me as I don't need AF for macro. The Micro-Nikkors are also good...

http://forum.mflenses.com/vivitar-100mm-2-8-macro-kiron-made-t75910.html

[D1N0]

The Tamron is nice and compact. Has great Bokeh like the Bokina and is also excellent at infinity distances. Also probably the cheapest of the lot.

[BrianSVP]

Both the Bokina and the 100/105mm Vivitar are excellent lenses, but both are larger and quite a bit heavier than either the Tak or the Tamron.

[caspert79]

In that range I've used the following macro's. I will put some of my findings with it.

- SMC Pentax 100/4 macro (same as Takumar)
Very good as a macro lens, top notch build quality. Less good but usable as a landscape lens (needs some stopping down for sharp corners).

- Minolta AF 100mm f/2.8. Very good all round lens, also excellent for landscape and portrait. Drawback is small focusing ring as it is an AF lens, and the adapter with built-in aperture you need. Fairly heavy lens (at least the metal bodied version) but goes 1:1.

- Minolta MD 100mm f/4. One of my favorites. Great performer, both macro and infinity. Very good CA control (maybe best of the bunch, together with Mamiya). Underrated lens, and therefore usually very affordable.

- Tokina AT-X 90mm f/2.5 and Vivitar Series 1 90mm f/2.5. One of my favorites. Great sharpness and contrast. Build quality excellent. Super smooth bokeh, and fast, so very good for portraits as well. Also excellent @ infinity. 2 tiny drawbacks: some CA's wide open, and relatively heavy (because it's fast).

- Vivitar/ Panagor 90mm f/2.8. Not a bad lens, but needs some stopping down for real sharpness. Goes 1:1 which is a plus. Not sure about infinity performance. There are better options IMO, that are cheap as well.

- Tamron SP 52B 90mm f/2.5. Close to the Tokina 90/2.5 in terms op optics. Often cheap, and versatile: good bokeh and good for portraits. Tokina feels nicer though (better build quality).

- Kiron 105mm f/2.8: good as a dedicated macro lens. Goes 1:1. Needs some stopping down. Not so good @ infinity, or for portraits. Exquisite build quality.

- Canon FD 100mm f/4. Very good lens in terms of optics, often cheap. Haven't extensively tested it.

- Tokina AF AT-X 100mm f/2.8 (internal focus version, rare outside Japan). Very cheap on Japanese auction websites. Very good build quality, and very sharp. Good from macro untill infinity. Some CA's wide open. Bokeh not as good as Bokina or Tamron.

- Mamiya C 120mm f/4: Excellent performer (probably the best). Excellent build quality. Goes 1:1. Fairly big and heavy as it is for Mamiya 645. You need a fairly big adapter as well. Unfortunately these lenses became quite expensive on the second hand market. The Minolta MD is very close in performance it seems.

- Olympus OM Zuiko Auto-Macro 90mm f/2: fabulous lens in terms of optics. Very sharp already wide open. Excellent at all distances, untill the far corners, also at wider apertures. Very fast, and great as a portrait lens. Some CA's wide open. Sold mine finally, because of the high prices these lenses fetch, and because the real world difference with the Bokina was small. The Tokina feels a bit better mechanically as well (at least my examples).

[mr_tibbs2004]

Thanks for all the help folks! I think I'm leaning towards the Tamron because of the weight. If the Tokina was as light as the Tamron I would go that route, but I have some heavy lenses that I just don't use because of the weight. Sounds like I can get most of the performance is the Tokina with the Tamron in a more compact size. I'll look around and see what I can find hopefully with an M42 mount. Thanks again!

[pepperberry farm]

[Himself]

Tamron lenses, im my experience, are prone ( read very prone ) to a horrendous violet/indigo-green fringe.
Impossible to remove.
But, maybe it was me and me luck.

Have to mention that I didn't have the one you're looking for.


Very sound advice from @caspert79.

[visualopsins]

List worth repeating -- gathered from his personal experience with each lens, often direct comparisons. Those experiences are well documented here at MFlenses.

I've used the TAKUMAR, Tamron, & Kiron. TAKUMAR is great when speed doesn't matter. I was never able to get a good photo with the Tamron - could have been my inexperience given others fine results. I had three or 4 copies to compare. The Kiron is on the camera now. I like extra speed and 1:1.

Seriously absent are the Micro-Nikkors. Though I haven't compared the f/4 directly with TAKUMAR, they seem equivalent.

[kypfer]

My Tamron #52B has followed me around since the '80's, through three changes of system/mount, and it still finds a place in my bag with one of my Pentax DSLRs.
Of course, with a change of mount as required, I can also use it on one of my Pentax, Exa or Miranda film cameras
The lens is inherently 1:2 magnification, but will achieve 1:1 either with the #01F 2x 'flat-field' adaptor, or, as supplied for the #52BB, an extension tube.
The Tamron tube fits between the mount and the lens, as does the #01F, so can be considered 'universal'.
Either arrangement will cause a similar loss in subject brightness, but with a tube there's no risk of extra distortion/degradation being introduced by the 2x, though the 2x can allow greater working distances if maximum magnification isn't required, and, of course, retains infinity focus.
Enjoy

[mr_tibbs2004]

I ended up purchasing the Tamron off of ebay. I'll post up some pics when I get around to playing with it. Thanks for all the suggestions, gives me a reason to purchase others to compare!

[caspert79]

[guardian]

My Tamron 52B was for me my first manual focus lens, bought used over 20 years ago for US$10 in like new condition. It's a great lens.

It took most of those 20 years for me finally, only relatively recently, to acquire a Tamron 18F extension tube also in very nice shape, for which I had to pay (nominally, ignoring inflation) three to four times as much as the 52B had originally cost me!

[caspert79]

Sorry for digging up this topic. Just wanted to focus a minute on a lens that's often ignored by the MF community. Probably because it's an AF lens. It's very well built though (metal barrel), has a f/2.8 aperture and goes 1:1.
Very good wide open (click twice for full size):
MinoltaAF10028macro_1 by devoscasper, on Flickr

[jamaeolus]

Nice! What is your AF lens that goes 1:1 but is only (!) a 2.8? I have one that fits that description and is a native mount for me. The Sony FE 90mm/2.8 G MACRO OSS. I paid 500ish for it second hand (after bidding on quite a few but losing). I like it so much it lives on my camera. The push pull AF/MF switch on the nice large focus ring along with OSS to add even more stops of stabilization to the a7riv's IBIS makes it very enjoyable to use. Additionally it has focus limit switch and OSS disable switch easily accessible on the side of the lens. Sony also went with the lens hood that mounts reversably, which I like. I get many images that with a solely MF lens I would likely miss. Though I do miss the extra aperture of my oly 90 f2 macro. I also don't think its quite as sharp as the mamiya 645 120f4 mentioned above. I highly recommend it for sony e mount users looking for a good all around short telephoto.

[visualopsins]

Missing from the description of the Tamron 52B and 52BB and possibly others is the "hot spot" -- the sensor reflecting the image back into the lens where a element reflects it again onto the sensor.

[caspert79]

[jamaeolus]

Well I haven't actually done side by side comparison but it just feels like it when I look at the viewfinder enlarger. Both are definitely amongst the best available. I did keep my 120/4 as well. I have too many lenses!

[titrisol70]

I have used both, the Tamron 90 while doing research (AF-Nikon mount) and the Pentax 100/4 (SMC-M and Super-Tak)

Both are great lenses and you cant go wrong with either

[kiddo]

[caspert79]