TAMRON SP AF 60mm f/2 Di-II MACRO 1:1 LD (IF)

[DonSchap]

I am looking at the various images I am producing with BOTH lenses (60/2 & 90/2.8) and I guess I am a little "weirded out" by the chromatic aberration I see from the 60/2. I suppose (notice how sure I am about this) what has me concerned is that TAMRON touted the improvement of this 60/2 by adding two SD elements to reduce chromatic aberration from the lens ... and to me, it seems worse.

Simply look at the image, below, and at the horizontal lines of the shaded area.

The 90/2.8 left no color attributes of this type in its shot, and, again, the 90/2.8 image looks "sharper" and of higher contrast.

Yes, BOTH images were shot at an aperture of f/2.8, the 60/2 in APS-C capture mode and the 90/2.8 in Full Frame (normal) ... the labels just identify which image is from which lens. All things considered, I would have expected a much crisper image from the 60/2 and NO CA chromatic aberration issue with the parallels.

[Peekayoh]

Don, I'm not sure that this should be a total surprise. Photozone.de said this about the 60mm Tammie...
"The amount of lateral CAs (color shadows at harsh contrast transitions) is higher than one would expect from a prime lens. With values around 0.8 pixels at the image borders throughout most of the aperture range they are no show stopper, though. In addition, CAs can easily be removed in post processing"

Even so, although the 90mm is better, it's not that much better in CAs. Resolution wise there is not a lot of tested difference between the two but as we know there can be differences between lenses and even a very small mis focus can cause CAs as well as the loss in sharpness.

[DonSchap]

Peter ... I took a lot of time to get the focus dead on, with Micro-Adjust. The 90mm took no time at all. These images simply tell you that the 60mm is not the 90mm. Their performance is vastly different, and if you want the better shot, the old lens is the way to go. If you want focus speed and convenience, and arre willing to accept compromise in you IQ, the 60mm is the one. I have both ... I have a choice.

Still, I am troubled to see that nothing has significantly changed with the 60mm that I received back ... and I am wondering what camera body they are throwing it on to get the adjustment checked?

[Rooz]

A few comments. Try the 60mm on the a700 just to rule out any strange software thing going on when you use apsc mode on the a900. the faster the glass the more chance there is for CA in and of itself and alsocfor that CA to detiriorate the sharpness of the images when ahot wide open.

That image you showed is certianly not consistent with the results i have seen from the 60mm, nor is it consitent with photozones review. It looks OOF to me.

[DonSchap]

On the α700, the 60mm f/2 MACRO is back-focusing about 10mm (1 cm) off, with a subject distance of about 16-inches. Now, with some distance, that may not be considerable, but with a MACRO, that just stinks. Unlike the infamous battery test, you cannot allow for such slop.

Original frame, α700 (spot focus on the "28")

100% crop

Same shot, α850, "+/-0" Micro-Adjust, APS-C Capture

100% crop

If you draw two diagonals from corner to corner in the framed images, you will see the center of focus is on the "28", not the "35." That is BACK-FOCUSING of a lens and it makes the difference between the "keepers" and the "crappers."

I do agree, if you have a lens that is O-O-F, then you will cast CAs. That is precisely WHY it has to be precise when it focuses. If anything, it is the telltale sign that something is askew and needs to be fixed. If you manually focus, your eye makes the choice of whether something is "in focus" or not... and you manually correct for it with the lens' focusing ring, but AF requires the lens be exactly aligned to give proper focus. I have had too many examples in the past of this problem ... and for the most part, I have had it adequately corrected for the lenses. That is, until now. As a customer, I would like this lens to work as it should ... not, as I have to correct it.

[Rooz]

images arent from a tripod so are at different distances and angles. hard to tell much from that. to my eyes, the a700 image looks sharper, better resolved and has far less CA. which confims alot of what ive been told about aps-c crop modes in FF cameras. its not quite up to the standard of a dedicated aps-c sensor. especially considering the a700 is quite dated now.

[Peekayoh]

As I've said many times... aww, why bother! See post#8.

I don't know anyone, using a macro at macro distances, who doesn't rely on manual focus.

[Rooz]

peter, i rarely use manual focus for macro, i detest MF with a passion so i try and avoid it at all costs.
this shot with the 105VR is not too far off MFD using AF and its dead on.


Untitled by .Chris.K, on Flickr

and this is with the 60G macro. again, using AF and they are bang on.


Untitled by .Chris.K, on Flickr


Untitled by .Chris.K, on Flickr

i have owned the tamron 90mm and loved it but dreaded the success rate. same with the sigma 150/2.8. they just dont focus accuracy or fast enough for my liking. you just need great glass. it makes all the difference

[Peekayoh]

Why do you hate MF?
Anyway, choosing to use MF with Macro has nothing to do with great glass.
It's a personal choice and you have every right to go your own way but I'm pretty sure I'm right in what I said.

Are you sure those images are close to 1:1 BTW?

[DonSchap]

Focus alignment on a PRIME lens should not be that hard to correct. CAs are incidental ... the focus will solve a lot of it. It is clear to me that the focus is the same on both images -> problematic.

I guess I will resign myself to spending another $20 in shipping, as back it goes, for alignment. I don't know who they have doing this, NOW, but I AM NOT IMPRESSED.