[lawman_hk1]

any comments, good or bad?

[ninekit]

should be good, long time ago, read a review, comparsion of the last generation of this lens vs. the famous canon 100mm macro USM. picture quality is head to head, just AF speed is sub-par.
i have the first AF version of the tamron 90mm many many years ago, found its just so-so, and i have the canon 100mm macro USM, which is very good, but i have sold it as its just too heavy and bulky for normal use. this new generation tamron should strike quite a good balance between price and performance.

[lawman_hk1]

thanks for your comments. I am considering of buying that Tamron lens. 90mm is good for portrait and its macro function comes in handy.

I am now using Tamron 28-300mm, the performance is average not spectacular.

[ninekit]

hows your split between macro and portrait? and are you using full frame or reduced frame D/SLR?

if you really do portrait more than macro, i will suggest you should get a 85mm F/1.8(or 1.4 if budget allowed); or 50mm F1.4 if you use reduced frame camera.

just to avoid the extra $ for a heavier and slower macro lens.

thats also my reason of selling the 100mm macro.

[lawman_hk1]

I am not using full frame DSLR. Right now, I am using D70 and i bought a Nikon 50mm f1.8d for portrait.

This sunday i will bring the 50mm to studio for testing.

However, i also want a longer range lens for portrait. 90mm will become 135mm when i use d70. I also think if the lens has macro function, it is an extra bonus to me. I suppose Nikon 105mm fixed range lens is also a good choice for portrait. Its aperture is wide.

[ninekit]

OK, 50 x 1.5 = 75mm F/1.8 sounds very good to me already for portrait picture taking. I once have a minolta MC135mm F/2.8, and found its a little too long for this.

Well, it all down to personal preference I guess.

I quite fancy to have a reduced frame DSLR body and a 50mm F/1.4 for portrait shooting.

a 20D with the vertical grip will be just ideal for its 5fs. :P