Review Mini review of Tamron 90mm (A7R5 | MFO-1)

[MrTW]

Had a chance to use the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro Di III during several dives in the Philippines.

Since there aren’t many UW reviews out there yet, I thought to share some of my feedback using the following setup:

• Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro Di III
• Sony a7r5
• Backscatter MF2
• Nauticam MFO-1
• Nauticam housing / Nauticam Port 105

FYI - I mainly used the MFO-1 diopter, which significantly improved autofocus with very little hunting. The magnification of the MFO-1 is minimal, so I had to adjust to the much more forgiving focus range (coming from a CMC-2). But once I got used to that, I kept the MFO-1 on for nearly all my shots, which worked great with the Tamron.

Main takeaways regarding the lens:

• Autofocus: Fast and reliable, especially with the MFO-1. Once locked, it held focus well, even on moving subjects.
• Sharpness & Detail: Crisp images with great texture and clarity. I mostly shot at f/12 to f/16, with great sharpness across.
• Color Rendering: Using the a7R5's s standard UW white balance setting, colors looked pretty good right out of the camera.
• Low Light Focusing: Slower focus in very low light (focus lights turned off); Using red focus lights at night made locking focus tricky and there was quite some hunting going on. Not sure if that’s just a lens issue though or also a camera limitation.

The lens fit perfectly in the Nauticam housing using the standard Port 105 (made for the Sony 90mm) and there was zero vignetting using the Nauticam port 105 despite the fact that the Tamron 90mm is very slightly shorter than the Sony 90mm.

After using it for several dives, I now decided to sell my Sony 90mm as the Tamron just worked well for me. Definitely a solid option for underwater macro in my opinion.

Below some sample pictures to show sharpness, etc. / more photos here: muck.diver

f/16.0 | 1/250 | ISO 100

f/3.5 | 1/200 | ISO 100

f/16.0 | 1/250 | ISO 100

 

[hedonist222]

Thanks for the review. Looks sharp.

But I cannot fathom why they limited it to just f/16. I was annoyed enough at the Sony being two stops wider than the Canon 100 f/2L, but the Sony is still usable at max aperture of f/22.

Look at the Orangutan Crab photo on your instagram page - the left eye is out of focus.

So I suppose my question is, does it have any advantage over the Sony?

 

[BoltSnap]

they limited it to just f/16.

What is limited to f/16? The MFO-1 or something else?

 

[BoltSnap]

coming from a CMC-2

Did you stack the CMC-2 with the MFO-1?

 

[MrTW]

Thanks for the review. Looks sharp.

But I cannot fathom why they limited it to just f/16. I was annoyed enough at the Sony being two stops wider than the Canon 100 f/2L, but the Sony is still usable at max aperture of f/22.

Look at the Orangutan Crab photo on your instagram page - the left eye is out of focus.

So I suppose my question is, does it have any advantage over the Sony?

Yes, very good point! I believe you mentioned that shortcoming for blackwater diving as well - which is valid.

For me (and that applies to surface macro photography only!), the Sony is just way too slow to focus. The Tamron is so much faster to lock on focus.

To be fair, I haven't done a UW comparison between the two lenses but based on surface macro, I am not using the Sony anymore.

That's the advantage I personally see using the Tammy

 

[MrTW]

What is limited to f/16? The MFO-1 or something else?

The lens is limited to f/16.

 

[MrTW]

Did you stack the CMC-2 with the MFO-1?

No, you can't stuck them.

The MFO-1 really serves a different purpose compared to the CMC-2.

That said, I might get a double flip in the future and use a SMC-3 (not CMC) in tandem with the MFO-1.

 

[DragonUW]

Thanks for the review and the pictures. I believe the review would be even more valuable if you tested it without the MFO-1 and compared it to Sony. Since you are taking macro shots, the strobe's color temperature should be set manually in the camera; it has nothing to do with the lens, per se. The minimum aperture of f/16 is due to the significant resolution degradation beyond this point, which becomes visible with modern high MP sensors. UW photographers might have different concerns, but manufacturers don't care much about us.

 

[BoltSnap]

compared it to Sony

Do you mean to compare it to images taken with the Sony 90mm lens?

The minimum aperture of f/16 is due to the significant resolution degradation beyond this point

Are you talking about the aperture needing to stay at precisely f/16, no higher or lower? One fixed aperture?

 

[DragonUW]

BoltSnap, yes, I meant to Sony 90mm Macro. I don't get your second question, but the MTF of the lenses drops significantly beyond f/16. There are several physical / engineering factors for this.