Would a 70-200 f2.8 Macro Lens set at 90mm delivers the same as a 90mm f2.8 macro?

[Cegonha]

Friends, I'm going to buy a Tamron 70-200 f2.8 Macro lens (Tamron | SP AF 70-200 F/2.8 DI LD IF MACRO TELEPHOTO ZOOM LENS FOR NIKON (77MM) | AF001N-700 | Tri-State Camera, Video, and Computer), which I was hoping to use for both tele and macro shots, but I've seen the DPS post (Three Lenses Every Photographer Should Own) and now I have a doubt...

If I buy a fixed 90mm lens with macro capability, is it so much different then keep buying my 70-200 and have it at 90mm? If so, regardless the size and weight of the 70-200 lens, should I have same final result as using the fixed 90mm?

Thanks

Regards

GS

[LeeR]

The biggest difference you are likely to notice is how close you can focus with these different lenses. "Macro" is a relative term and a lot of zoom manufacturers use the term rather loosely when it comes to their zooms. The 90mm prime is likely to allow you to get much, much closer than the zoom.

[LoveDSLR]

It is just Tamron way of saying it is a close focusing (1:3.1) zoom lens (for marketing purpose). A true Macro lens is 1:1 and flat field. If you are referring to the Tamron 90mm Macro then it is an excellent 3rd party macro lens.

The old Nikon ED 70-180mm f/4.5-5.6 D AF Micro is an example of a macro (1:1.32) zoom lens.

[Cegonha]

Thanks for the explanation. Yes, I was looking for the Tamron 90mm. in which I think that besides being a macro lens (with closest focus at 0,29cm/0,95ft) it could be used as portrait lens.

Have you used it that way?

Thanks again!

[LoveDSLR]

Originally Posted by Cegonha

Have you used it that way?

I don't use macro lenses for portraits--too sharp. My favorite portrait lens is the Canon 85 f/1.2 L II or Nikon 105 f/2.5 AI with B+W Softar filter.