TAMRON SP 90MM F2.5 MACRO LENS.

There are 2 different versions. Here's a hood for one of them hood on ebay

I bought a standard metal screw hood hood I bought

Just realised that the lens i was looking at was the 2.5 and not the 2.8, hence the cheap (so far) price, but if it is good enough for DrOrloff, then its good enough for me Got my 50mm today, cant wait to go home and play with it, still waiting on my 70-300mm.

Adrian, i would love to see some of your photos with this lens, thanks.

I'm not Dr Orloff but here are mine with this lens: link

Thanks Alan!
I realized my version is the earlier 52b (bot 52bb), so the first one would not work for me. But I ordered the second one, which lead me to believe you also have the 52b version as the diameter is 49mm (it is 52mm in the 52bb version.)

thanks Tim, you have great pics. Keeping fingers crossed the price doesnt rise too much

I'm no Tim, but here are a few which I think sum up the look of this lens. This is also the kind of size of subject where the 1:2 magnification works best for me. It's a very good portrait lens too:














I've now got the Pentax DFA100mm macro now and had considered selling the Tamron. However, looking back at the photos I think I'd miss it too much. I think it suits Autumn - I love the colours in the second from bottom shot. I'd say it has the most distinctive look of any of my lenses.

What fantastic photos! I know the lens doesn't make the photographer, but im sure it gives a head start. You must live in a beautiful spot, im sure my only subjects will be bluebottles and daffodils
How much would you pay s/h for this lens? Dont want to miss it, but dont want to pay over the odds either, would rather save for a new one. Have spent more time reading books, and buying lenses than taking photos, but will post a few here for all your expert opinions in the next few weeks.
Thanks for all the support and answers to questions im sure you have answered hundreds of times

Is there such a thing as a bad macro lens? No-one ever admits as much!

DrOrloff, those are very nice shots. Love the textures and tones on the shrooms.

You can actually usually get a metal PK mount for about £15:-

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/TAMRON-ADAPTALL-2-MOUNT-PENTAX-K-FIT-35MM-DSLR-/4001940127...

got the PK mount tonight for about €20 incl p&p not bad, lens currently at £70 with 2 days to go, so not much of a bargain by the looks of things

I don't think you'll find a bargain, but no need to pay over the odds as they do come up frequently.

Katie, there's one going here for £99 incl. a 1:1 tube: http://www.lcegroup.co.uk/Used/Tamron-90mm-f2.5-macro-SP-&-1:1-tube_31738.html

The rest of you can stand back like gentlemen until Katie's had a look!

All the best,

Chris

I splashed out on a new SP 90mm f/2.5 sometime in the 1990s, after inheriting a bit of cash! Complete with 1:1 extension, hood and Adaptall-2 mount for my M42 Pentax Spotmatic. Very good macro lens. Later I started using an Olympus OM2 spot meter 35mm camera, and bought the Adaptall mount for that. When my dear wife bought me a K-x last Christmas, I bought a PK mount on eBay for just over £13. I usually use the SP90 fully manual on the K-x, but it works pretty well in Av.

One thing that I have noticed, with this pre-digital era lens, is slight flare when photographing a black or very dark subject. It shows as a disk of faint pale blue haze centre-frame. It seems worse with small f-stops and long tripod exposures - and covering the viewfinder window does not help. I have not yet fully evaluated this small fault, but I suspect that it is the known back-reflection between the digital sensor and the rear lens element that has emerged with digital SLRs. I believe that the newer digital versions of the SP90 have better anti-reflection blooming on the rear lens element.

It has not been a problem on images that don't contain much black. DrOrloff's photos of fungi and the dragonfly are gorgeous! Is your lens a more recent, better bloomed one, or does it not show any flare anyway?

Martin

I am getting this much worse on the K-7 than previous K100D.
My Tamron SP300/5.6 has gone from excellent to marginal and the previously brilliant SP90/2.5 has got the bloomy circle too. Bit tragic really. Might have to get another K100D to fit them
Pete

Grey overcast day here in East Anglia, so I put the K-x on a tripod to test the Tamron SP 90mm f2.5 with some home-made cards. All-manual: focus, f-stop and exposure. AWB set, and 2-sec delay for tripod work.

There is no detectable flare in the images taken at the wider apertures: f/2.5, f/5.6 are very good. Some flare noticeable at f/11 and very pronounced at f/22. The flare consists of a disk of pale blue haze, dead centre of field of view, and its diameter is about one tenth of the long axis of the image, or a bit less.

The flare is only really troublesome when the centre of the image is black or very dark. When the centre is pale, the haze is much less noticeable.

Covering the viewfinder window makes no difference at all, so it is not caused by stray light coming in there. Must be caused by internal reflections between the shiny digital sensor and the lens elements (could it be the rear suface of the diaphragm?).

I was reminded of how sharp this lens is, even at full aperture. On my camera at least, the focus in the viewfinder screen was spot on: no back-focus etc errors. So, unless you need maximum DoF, keep to the wider apertures.

Martin