If you like these videos, make sure to hit that like and subscribe button and drop a comment below! Its the best way to support the work I do here and is much appreciated!
A shame really since its comonly accepted the sigma 105mm is sharper than the Sony 90mm so does the Tamron is better than the Sigma? At this point even with a 61 mpx sensor, does it really matter ? For sure If your Camera have IBIS, the Sony 90mm is no longer a near the best choices and boy is it a good lens in itself!
@@EmGa-p9l ive found a video where they are directly compared, the difference is ridiculously small, the sigma might be a tad bit sharper at f2.8 bit the Tamron could have an edge over the sigma at F8 but its so close... Both beat the sony and the Tamron beat the sigma in term of Autofocus, bokeh and focus breathing.
Sony is the best. Most versatile with better stabe and the unique manual focus push pull ring. Sharpness is bullshit, they`re both extremely sharp and in a macro shot nothing ever happens in corners, that`s why it`s called macro. The colors of the Sony are also better.
A review without a thorough comparison to its main competitor, the Sigma 105mm Macro, makes no sense. I think that the Sigma has an advantage over the Tamron in terms of sharpness and bokeh. Personally, I think that the Sigma 105mm macro is one of the sharpest lenses I have ever had. It is also very solidly made and is also great for portraits. Tamron was a bit late with its macro because it released it only at the end of 2024, having previously focused on various zooms.
But is the bokeh really better on the Sigma? Yes, at 105 mm it gets more bokeh, but the quality should at least theoretically be worse with only 9 aperture blades opposed to 12 in the Tamron
@@Wistbacka If you compare the bokeh at 90mm and 105mm lens, the longer focal length will result in greater background blur. In addition, you can move a little further away from the motif, e.g. an insect
You tested a macro lens sharpness with the focal point well beyond the macro range. Why? You didn't test if the Tamron works correctly with the focus stack feature on Sony bodies. Why? Smells like Tamron gave you a product early, so you couldn't be honest. Or you're not experienced enough with macro work to test the product properly. Clutching mechanism, f22, clear markings, these are all very big points of difference for the Sony. It's also the OE lens so it's likely to be more reliable for longer on Sony bodies. The Tamron looks great, just that we macro shooters can't tell from this either biased or incomplete review.
I must agree with you, lots of things missing in this review. Also missing footage with video focus performance, that is where 3rd party lenses struggle the most. Also part with stabilization, maybe at 1:1 OSS won't give spectacular stable footage, but at 1:2 having OSS is a huge deal, it is like having footage or not at all.
I wonder if this could be a replacement for my Viltrox 85 mm 1.8 - I really love the 1.8 separation, but the new Tamron seems to be up close. The minimum focus distance on the Viltrox is terrible, so the Tamron could really be an alternative...
Like you I love macro lenses! And the tamron has special rendering. In comparison to the older bodies the much older sony preforms better on the a7r5 both in terms of AF & Stabilization. Not sure of how the tamron performs for micro sized flying creatures. Sony's value has dropped so one can pick up a good used copy for 400-500$. Handling sony still has the edge but the tamron's overall rendering has a special aesthetics. I use the 90 macro much less since I got the sony 70-200 half macro where the AF & stabilization is enormous. And one can do handheld video at 200mm (half macro). Lenses have become so good that differences are tiny. I probably will not upgrade from the sony but if I did not have it then this would be my choice.
come on man, you just do not have the Sigma 105mm 1:2.8 DG DN Macro lens for comparison. The AF you have checked is the old Sigma 70mm macro. Don't tell me anything that the Sigma 105mm DG DN Macro is bad then the Sony 90mm. I have owned both but i ended up to keep the Sigma. Sorry but you have tried !
Hi Stefan. Nice review. I feel you are technical. Not every one is... I do have a technical question as I am looking in to macro photography. Can you relate to 50mm 2.8 Macro? I wonder 90mm vs 50mm and if 50mm will have any significant image distortion when close to subject due to spherical characteristics of wide angle lens. I consider 50mm an wide angle and have seen distortion in portraits when too close to subject. Forgive silly question I am really a newbie when it come to Macro. Thinking to purchase that 50mm 2.8 macro but never shot those macro shoots. I don't even want to use it for a head of a fly shoots. More for beauty shots in portraiture. So worrying if this distortion present on standard portraits with 50mm will show when I will photograph face and entire frame will be filled with say 1/4 of the face. I know this is not and easy one and I got use to that not many ppl can understand and answer to problems I have, but as I said at the begin I am impressed with your review and feel you might have same attention to details and will to understand problem in greater depth.
Can you do a focusstack with the new Tamron and the Sony lens? Because of the high focus breathing of the Sony I'm curious to see the difference. Also, is the Tamron supported bij Sony's focus bracketing feature?
wait how is Tamron still managing to create 3D pop??? the subjects in front look so bright and clear, is this post processing? Is the latest lens element far away from the sensor?
It can be multiple things (like all the things you listed, and more). The reason a lens like this might "3D pop" compared to any other, is macro lenses of the same focal length and aperature, is because they usually come with optical corrections that non-macro lenses never have to be designed for. Firstly, any macro worth it's weight must be apochromatic. Meaning no color frequency separation leading to chromatic aberrations, and this is done with far more demanding and careful design of the glass elements themselves, and not simply an in-camera digital correction. This is usually not done on most lenses because the consumer market has spoken and they're willing to tolerate fringing and edit it out in post processing (even those some chromatic aberration is basically a nightmare to remove). So you get proper fidelity adherence in this respect. That's one aspect. The next aspect is that any macro lens worth it's weight will also have geometric distortion rectified (so again, optically corrected with the glass elements themselves as previously, to not have things like barrel or pincushion distortion). So you now have another aspect of fidelity that is preserved without having to move a slider in post processing, chewing away at your resolution when you correct for lens distortion (like all lens profiles do in popular photo editing apps like Lightroom). So you get to keep all your resolution with looks clean. There is another insidious form of distortion that's not barrel, nor pincushion, and that's mustache distortion. This cannot be corrected in any appreciable manner, and is utterly disastrous in any serious technical forms of photography (like preservation of cultural objects, and images of computer micro components). Again, these distortions are things normal consumers tolerate, because the lens companies promise the user a lighter lens (basically the only reason we have all these optical problems that are now being left to Lightroom to rectify after shooting). The next is, as always with any macro lens worth it's weight, they should all have a flat field curvature, and sharpness across the whole frame (as much as possible). This is obviously something you don't want when your depth of field can be very thin at macro distances. You don't want your image to be sharp in the center, slightly blury near the middle-outer edges, and then sharp again at the edges. This is again, another thing general consumers tolerate, because they don't have exacting demands as a technical photographer might. The lens simply needs to be sharp to take advantage of the full field sharpness equality in general. It needs to be as sharp as physics will allow (and only be diffraction limited). One final thing that is extremely good to have (on any lens) is to immunize it from being flare prone. Flairs are fine creatively, but what's not fine with flares, is that SO MANY lenses have their contrast plummet the moment they flair. This is utterly disastrous if you want that "pop" look. There's nothing that says less pop, than contrast being low in the whole image or parts of it. When you take all these aspects together, and you then understand color harmonies, contrast ratios, and proper framing of subjects. You can then have an image that "pops" as you might be seeing it after careful editing. I've said a lot about why macro lenses are great. But the obvious downside is, when you want to have perfection in these aspects without relying on digital corrections like common lenses - all that hardware costs money, and the lens simply cannot compete in terms of size versus normal lenses. A 90mm f2.8 lens can be made at less than half the size than a comparable macro. But when you want to have a high fidelity lens like this do all these corrections without Lightoom - the cost is size, weight, and money, and you simply cannot get crazy low apertures like f1.2 on a macro (you can in reality, it's not that big of a deal in theory, but in practice you'd be walking around with a bazooka probably).
You forgot the Sigma, testing on a high res camera I wonder if the Tamron beats the Sigma in terms of sharpness. AF is better on Tamron. Nobody should buy the Sony as it's the least sharp and most expensive.
"Least sharp" could be splitting hairs, depending on your usage scenario and requirements. I have certainly never found mine lacking. Further the focus ring with hard stops and feel mimicking a mechanically coupled focus ring is very nice for a non-mechanically-coupled focus. Last 105mm is somewhat harder for the Sony camera SSS than 90mm is. I would much rather have the Tamron with its faster af and 12 aperture blades (potential sunstars) than the Sigma, and probably the Sony. But you are correct in that the Sigma appears to be missing from this review as it is mentioned in its title
@@Vantrakter I've not seen MTF validations from third party tests, but the Sony gets wholly bested by the Sigma in both sharpness, and aberration control. At this point, the only real thing Sony has over it, is ergonomics/usage being more adherent to what proper macro lens functionality ought to be, OIS (which is questionable as to whether it properly integrates with in-body stabilization at all, I've not seen anyone with definitive proof of this, but it's useful on non IBIS bodies obviously), and slightly more silent auto focus motor. In terms of image quality though, Sony needs to update this thing, it's been basically a decade - and the only reason I think they haven't is because they'll never go back to putting out a lens of this sort of build quality and features for that price. It's simply superior to any of their other typical lens lineup by a mile, and Sony isn't clamoring for sales at such low margins, and they certainly don't want to build a lens with such a nice body, while also designing a APO lens that ALSO beats everyone else in sharpness (sharpness and small size is their driving motivation for lens design now, we see it with their public admission as to why they believe their users wouldn't tolerate an 85 1.2, over the 1.4 they just released). So yeah, Sony doesn't want to do anything in hardware if it can be achieved electronically (like refining that whole clutch system, and clear hard stops with proper markings). If they could charge double the price they are now for their 90mm they might consider it, but otherwise they'll do it only because they feel they have to. Getting the tooling going for that at this point with how comfy they are selling G and GM's for the prices they do - is not something they'll want to do for and updated 90mm Macro.
Wasn't impressed with the Sigma 105 macro, AF was sluggish and would struggle in quite basic situations, also my copy had terrible CA that unfortunately wasn't completely removable in LR
@@ItsEzlan Seems like a bad copy of the lens, mine doesn't show any CA. AF isn't very fast but was accurate for normal portraits. While doing macro it would hunt back and forth but I heard all AF macro lenses do that. For macro always use manual focus
@@jeroenvdw yes I used it for about a week and sent it back, my camera shop sent it back to sigma after they did some testing, I'm still using thr Canon 100L Macro with thr sigma MC-11 adapter which is amazing,
Thank you for nice review, Tamron did it again. OK, Sigma, your turn. 105/2,8 DG DN Macro ART is beautiful lens but with this competitor, new version should be released. But still, I will stick with my 105/2,8 because I am used to it even with its slower AF because it is super sharp.
If you like these videos, make sure to hit that like and subscribe button and drop a comment below! Its the best way to support the work I do here and is much appreciated!
The title indicates a comparison with the Sigma lens - but there is NO comparison! Deceiver.
A shame really since its comonly accepted the sigma 105mm is sharper than the Sony 90mm so does the Tamron is better than the Sigma? At this point even with a 61 mpx sensor, does it really matter ? For sure If your Camera have IBIS, the Sony 90mm is no longer a near the best choices and boy is it a good lens in itself!
@@EmGa-p9l ive found a video where they are directly compared, the difference is ridiculously small, the sigma might be a tad bit sharper at f2.8 bit the Tamron could have an edge over the sigma at F8 but its so close... Both beat the sony and the Tamron beat the sigma in term of Autofocus, bokeh and focus breathing.
Sony is the best. Most versatile with better stabe and the unique manual focus push pull ring.
Sharpness is bullshit, they`re both extremely sharp and in a macro shot nothing ever happens in corners, that`s why it`s called macro.
The colors of the Sony are also better.
Facts on facts
Also sony have longer working distance by 5cm comparing to tamron, with skittish bugs its like having footage or not.
A review without a thorough comparison to its main competitor, the Sigma 105mm Macro, makes no sense. I think that the Sigma has an advantage over the Tamron in terms of sharpness and bokeh. Personally, I think that the Sigma 105mm macro is one of the sharpest lenses I have ever had. It is also very solidly made and is also great for portraits. Tamron was a bit late with its macro because it released it only at the end of 2024, having previously focused on various zooms.
You're right, sigma 105 is still the sharpest macro lens ever made, only voigtlander 65mm can match with sigma.
But is the bokeh really better on the Sigma? Yes, at 105 mm it gets more bokeh, but the quality should at least theoretically be worse with only 9 aperture blades opposed to 12 in the Tamron
@@Wistbacka If you compare the bokeh at 90mm and 105mm lens, the longer focal length will result in greater background blur. In addition, you can move a little further away from the motif, e.g. an insect
You tested a macro lens sharpness with the focal point well beyond the macro range. Why?
You didn't test if the Tamron works correctly with the focus stack feature on Sony bodies. Why?
Smells like Tamron gave you a product early, so you couldn't be honest.
Or you're not experienced enough with macro work to test the product properly.
Clutching mechanism, f22, clear markings, these are all very big points of difference for the Sony. It's also the OE lens so it's likely to be more reliable for longer on Sony bodies.
The Tamron looks great, just that we macro shooters can't tell from this either biased or incomplete review.
I must agree with you, lots of things missing in this review. Also missing footage with video focus performance, that is where 3rd party lenses struggle the most.
Also part with stabilization, maybe at 1:1 OSS won't give spectacular stable footage, but at 1:2 having OSS is a huge deal, it is like having footage or not at all.
Is the insect at 4:20 actually a focus stack? How many images?
No its a single image.
👍👍👍Always enjoy your reviews
Thanks very much! Hope they help
My favourite WAS the Sigma 70mm but seeing the Tamron now….need to check that one too
I wonder if this could be a replacement for my Viltrox 85 mm 1.8 - I really love the 1.8 separation, but the new Tamron seems to be up close. The minimum focus distance on the Viltrox is terrible, so the Tamron could really be an alternative...
You will get more separation with the tamron as you can get closer with more magnification. The framing however will be different.
Like you I love macro lenses! And the tamron has special rendering. In comparison to the older bodies the much older sony preforms better on the a7r5 both in terms of AF & Stabilization. Not sure of how the tamron performs for micro sized flying creatures. Sony's value has dropped so one can pick up a good used copy for 400-500$. Handling sony still has the edge but the tamron's overall rendering has a special aesthetics. I use the 90 macro much less since I got the sony 70-200 half macro where the AF & stabilization is enormous. And one can do handheld video at 200mm (half macro). Lenses have become so good that differences are tiny. I probably will not upgrade from the sony but if I did not have it then this would be my choice.
how do you adjust the button on the lens? It's now on AEL. Shoot a lot of macro photos. Thanks in advance for helping.
come on man, you just do not have the Sigma 105mm 1:2.8 DG DN Macro lens for comparison. The AF you have checked is the old Sigma 70mm macro. Don't tell me anything that the Sigma 105mm DG DN Macro is bad then the Sony 90mm. I have owned both but i ended up to keep the Sigma. Sorry but you have tried !
I’m curious how this compares to the Nikon Z 105mm.
amazing video
Hi Stefan. Nice review. I feel you are technical. Not every one is... I do have a technical question as I am looking in to macro photography. Can you relate to 50mm 2.8 Macro? I wonder 90mm vs 50mm and if 50mm will have any significant image distortion when close to subject due to spherical characteristics of wide angle lens. I consider 50mm an wide angle and have seen distortion in portraits when too close to subject. Forgive silly question I am really a newbie when it come to Macro. Thinking to purchase that 50mm 2.8 macro but never shot those macro shoots. I don't even want to use it for a head of a fly shoots. More for beauty shots in portraiture. So worrying if this distortion present on standard portraits with 50mm will show when I will photograph face and entire frame will be filled with say 1/4 of the face. I know this is not and easy one and I got use to that not many ppl can understand and answer to problems I have, but as I said at the begin I am impressed with your review and feel you might have same attention to details and will to understand problem in greater depth.
Wish they would do a 60mm macro on Sony e mount 🤞
Can you do a focusstack with the new Tamron and the Sony lens? Because of the high focus breathing of the Sony I'm curious to see the difference. Also, is the Tamron supported bij Sony's focus bracketing feature?
I did focus bracketing with much cheaper lenses than this tamron, even chinese AF lenses works, so im sure this will work too.
wait how is Tamron still managing to create 3D pop??? the subjects in front look so bright and clear, is this post processing? Is the latest lens element far away from the sensor?
It can be multiple things (like all the things you listed, and more). The reason a lens like this might "3D pop" compared to any other, is macro lenses of the same focal length and aperature, is because they usually come with optical corrections that non-macro lenses never have to be designed for. Firstly, any macro worth it's weight must be apochromatic. Meaning no color frequency separation leading to chromatic aberrations, and this is done with far more demanding and careful design of the glass elements themselves, and not simply an in-camera digital correction. This is usually not done on most lenses because the consumer market has spoken and they're willing to tolerate fringing and edit it out in post processing (even those some chromatic aberration is basically a nightmare to remove). So you get proper fidelity adherence in this respect. That's one aspect.
The next aspect is that any macro lens worth it's weight will also have geometric distortion rectified (so again, optically corrected with the glass elements themselves as previously, to not have things like barrel or pincushion distortion). So you now have another aspect of fidelity that is preserved without having to move a slider in post processing, chewing away at your resolution when you correct for lens distortion (like all lens profiles do in popular photo editing apps like Lightroom). So you get to keep all your resolution with looks clean. There is another insidious form of distortion that's not barrel, nor pincushion, and that's mustache distortion. This cannot be corrected in any appreciable manner, and is utterly disastrous in any serious technical forms of photography (like preservation of cultural objects, and images of computer micro components). Again, these distortions are things normal consumers tolerate, because the lens companies promise the user a lighter lens (basically the only reason we have all these optical problems that are now being left to Lightroom to rectify after shooting).
The next is, as always with any macro lens worth it's weight, they should all have a flat field curvature, and sharpness across the whole frame (as much as possible). This is obviously something you don't want when your depth of field can be very thin at macro distances. You don't want your image to be sharp in the center, slightly blury near the middle-outer edges, and then sharp again at the edges. This is again, another thing general consumers tolerate, because they don't have exacting demands as a technical photographer might.
The lens simply needs to be sharp to take advantage of the full field sharpness equality in general. It needs to be as sharp as physics will allow (and only be diffraction limited).
One final thing that is extremely good to have (on any lens) is to immunize it from being flare prone. Flairs are fine creatively, but what's not fine with flares, is that SO MANY lenses have their contrast plummet the moment they flair. This is utterly disastrous if you want that "pop" look. There's nothing that says less pop, than contrast being low in the whole image or parts of it.
When you take all these aspects together, and you then understand color harmonies, contrast ratios, and proper framing of subjects. You can then have an image that "pops" as you might be seeing it after careful editing.
I've said a lot about why macro lenses are great. But the obvious downside is, when you want to have perfection in these aspects without relying on digital corrections like common lenses - all that hardware costs money, and the lens simply cannot compete in terms of size versus normal lenses. A 90mm f2.8 lens can be made at less than half the size than a comparable macro. But when you want to have a high fidelity lens like this do all these corrections without Lightoom - the cost is size, weight, and money, and you simply cannot get crazy low apertures like f1.2 on a macro (you can in reality, it's not that big of a deal in theory, but in practice you'd be walking around with a bazooka probably).
The Sony FE 90mm F/2.8 G oss is still king
F16 ist the lowest aperture value? That's strange.
You forgot the Sigma, testing on a high res camera I wonder if the Tamron beats the Sigma in terms of sharpness. AF is better on Tamron. Nobody should buy the Sony as it's the least sharp and most expensive.
"Least sharp" could be splitting hairs, depending on your usage scenario and requirements. I have certainly never found mine lacking. Further the focus ring with hard stops and feel mimicking a mechanically coupled focus ring is very nice for a non-mechanically-coupled focus. Last 105mm is somewhat harder for the Sony camera SSS than 90mm is.
I would much rather have the Tamron with its faster af and 12 aperture blades (potential sunstars) than the Sigma, and probably the Sony. But you are correct in that the Sigma appears to be missing from this review as it is mentioned in its title
@@Vantrakter I've not seen MTF validations from third party tests, but the Sony gets wholly bested by the Sigma in both sharpness, and aberration control. At this point, the only real thing Sony has over it, is ergonomics/usage being more adherent to what proper macro lens functionality ought to be, OIS (which is questionable as to whether it properly integrates with in-body stabilization at all, I've not seen anyone with definitive proof of this, but it's useful on non IBIS bodies obviously), and slightly more silent auto focus motor. In terms of image quality though, Sony needs to update this thing, it's been basically a decade - and the only reason I think they haven't is because they'll never go back to putting out a lens of this sort of build quality and features for that price. It's simply superior to any of their other typical lens lineup by a mile, and Sony isn't clamoring for sales at such low margins, and they certainly don't want to build a lens with such a nice body, while also designing a APO lens that ALSO beats everyone else in sharpness (sharpness and small size is their driving motivation for lens design now, we see it with their public admission as to why they believe their users wouldn't tolerate an 85 1.2, over the 1.4 they just released).
So yeah, Sony doesn't want to do anything in hardware if it can be achieved electronically (like refining that whole clutch system, and clear hard stops with proper markings). If they could charge double the price they are now for their 90mm they might consider it, but otherwise they'll do it only because they feel they have to. Getting the tooling going for that at this point with how comfy they are selling G and GM's for the prices they do - is not something they'll want to do for and updated 90mm Macro.
Wasn't impressed with the Sigma 105 macro, AF was sluggish and would struggle in quite basic situations, also my copy had terrible CA that unfortunately wasn't completely removable in LR
@@ItsEzlan Seems like a bad copy of the lens, mine doesn't show any CA. AF isn't very fast but was accurate for normal portraits. While doing macro it would hunt back and forth but I heard all AF macro lenses do that. For macro always use manual focus
@@jeroenvdw yes I used it for about a week and sent it back, my camera shop sent it back to sigma after they did some testing, I'm still using thr Canon 100L Macro with thr sigma MC-11 adapter which is amazing,
Thank you for nice review, Tamron did it again.
OK, Sigma, your turn. 105/2,8 DG DN Macro ART is beautiful lens but with this competitor, new version should be released. But still, I will stick with my 105/2,8 because I am used to it even with its slower AF because it is super sharp.
😎🤝