Tamron 90/2.5 macro, manual focus version

[Airy]

In the eighties, that lens was highly regarded as being on a par with Nikon or Canon macro lenses. It was deemed a good allround performer, also especially suitable for portraits.

My first impression (on Df) : good performer indeed, ideal size, but lacks a bit contrast compared to Nikkors, not mentioning Zeiss. With some PP, it is however possible to get very good results. Attached is an example. A/B comparisons with 105/2.5 AIS and 105/2.8 VR to follow.

[Airy]

Desperatly trying to set up a "correct" comparison between the Nikkor 105/2.5 AIS and the Tamron 90/2.5 (manual focus, the earlier 52B version, filter size 49mm). Not because of different focal lengths : keeping the framing identical is the best way to perform a fair comparison if FLs are not too different. The problem is to get exactly the same focus, and even using LV that is difficult.

First impressions from less-than-perfect series shot with Df and D800 :
- similar contrast. Originally I thought the Tamron was less contrasty ; this is probably due to higher flare propensity. In the present case I shot against a wall at different angles and with different contraptions in front, light sources being diffuse. The Tamron has a more complex optical formula and both lenses have coatings from the same generation, which might explain the difference outdoors.
- similar light transmission and vignetting
- 90/2.5 colors are slightly warmer
- 90/2.5 has a higher resolution, especially at wide apertures. Stopped down, their are about the same in the center, but the Tamron remains better in the corners.
- 90/2.5 has the flatter field (probably explaining, in part, the better corner performance)
- Different bokeh : Nikkor is smoother behind (no "edging"), Tamron is smoother in front
- 90/2.5 displays much less LoCA, but is not LoCA-free
- Size, weight, handling, manufacturing quality are very good in both cases. Only downside is that orientation of the focus scale is reversed on the Tamron compared to all Nikkors.

Note : the above concerns short distance shooting (about 2 m) !

Bottom line : Df huggers should seriously consider getting the Tamron 90/2.5... especially if close-ups or macro work (down to 1:1 with extender) is likely to occur.

Caveats : I need to establish further comparisons (long distance and against the light).

[Akira]

Very practical review of this legendary lens.

If I remember correctly, Tamron 90/2.5 Macro shares the same optical design of Tokina 90/2.5 including their dedicated converters (not "tele" converters) that enabled 1:1 magnification, and the optics was originally designed by Kodak.

There was 52BB model with improved coatings which would control the flare more efficiently.

[KarlMera]

If I remember correctly, Tamron 90/2.5 Macro shares the same optical design of Tokina 90/2.5 including their dedicated converters (not "tele" converters) that enabled 1:1 magnification, and the optics was originally designed by Kodak.

Are you sure about that?

[Mongo]

Mongo thought the Tamron 90mm f2.5 macro was the lens against which other lenses were tested in its day. Not sure it does have the same optical formula as the Tokina 90mm f2.5 becuase the Tokina is more sought after as being slightly better and the best of its kind for that period and even today rates quite highly.

On the Tamron's reputation alone, some years ago, Mongo bought a mint (still in original box and virtually unused) version of this lens. The only difference bing that it was the first AF version of the 90mm f2.5. Mongo paid the princely sum of about US $70. It was a complete steal ! Despite having the 55mm f2.8, 105 f2.8 AIS and 200mm f4 Ai macros, Mongo uses the Tamron AF 90mm f2.5 in preference to all of those lenses and does so with great satisfaction and pleasure. It is an extremely good lens in manual or AF.

One thing that may put people off it is that it is very cheaply made. It is about the same standard as a nikon 55-200mm kit lens. However, that is where any similarity ends. It is an amazing performer keeping up with often much more expensive lenses.  BTW - it also takes some of the best portraits Mongo has taken. Mongo would not now be without it.

Attached is a very quick image @ 70% crop of the original

[Akira]

Are you sure about that?

I remember I've heard or read about that years ago, but wasn't able to find any evidence.  There was yet another 90/2.5 macro in Vivitar Ser. 1 brand.  Maybe you can look into the patent records...

[Fons Baerken]

Erodium

i took the opportunity to step outside the Df with the Tokina 100/2.8 mounted
handheld, windy and brisk weather

[KarlMera]

I remember I've heard or read about that years ago, but wasn't able to find any evidence.  There was yet another 90/2.5 macro in Vivitar Ser. 1 brand.  Maybe you can look into the patent records...

The Tokina has 8 elements in 7 groups, the Tamron has 8 elements in 6 groups.

[Roland Vink]

The Tokina 90/2.5 macro was based on the Vivitar 90/2.5 macro. The Tamron 90/2.5 is a different lens.

[Akira]

Karl and Roland, thanks for the info.  I stand corrected.

[Airy]

A few more examples. Sharpness and bokeh wide open : passion fruit. The fruit is pretty sharp and aberration-free. Bokeh is fine but that's an easy case we have here.

[Airy]

Sharpness wide open : at close range and about 2m, 100% crops in either case.

[Airy]

Wide open - LoCA is very moderate

[Airy]

Beware of backlight though; this lens is somewhat sensitive. In the first case, where the shot was taken nearly perpendicular to the glass panes, with one bulb and its reflection in the field: there is a general haze also covering the (glass free) shadows. The second one is shot at an angle; the mere presence of one big bulb reflection in the field causes less harm.

[Airy]

Long distance shots, this morning at dawn, with a mix of diffuse and direct sunlight. All f/5.6. Sharpness is there, but one could have more contrast despite the conditions. On the second shot, note owever that the dark parts are reasonably dark despite the shot being taken against the light.