GeneralThis is the newer version of this lens, offering VR (or, as Tamron calls it, VC = Vibration Compensation). But is it otherwise similar to the old one, optically and otherwise? Or are there any tricks hidden inside its (plastic) casing? As you can see if you compare the two reviews, a lot of what I had to say about the previous version also applies here. But there are still some crucial differences.
|I found myself using this lens more as a short tele and less as a macro. It doesn't mean it's not good in that, too, simply that this is a lens meant for versatility|
Pros/Cons+ optically almost flawless, no real issues (but read below).
+ stabilization works splendidly.
+ AF is finally modernized: fast and reliable
- construction quality inferior to Nikon's
- on full-frame, I find the 90mm a weird focal length for macro (more on 'Final Verdict')
- somewhat susceptible to flare without the hood.
Intended UsersGreat for:
- DX users looking for a macro which can double as a short tele - stabilization is an added benefit.
- As a portrait lens, it's highly capable - again, stabilization helps a lot with such shots.
- Low light capabilities are greatly increased by the stabilization feature, as well as the more capable autofocus.
- If you plan to use it exclusively for macro, there are better/cheaper options
- A personal opinion, of course, but 90mm is not a great macro range for full frame. 105mm is a minimum for me. The difference might not sound much, but it can be.
- resale value of third party lenses will always drop faster, if you care about such things.
|You really, really, can't fault its optical qualities. Bitingly sharp, with superb micro-contrast.|