Nikkor 105mm VR Macro VS Tamron 90mm VC Macro

<p>Hi all,<br>

I already own the below setup from Nikon. <br>

Body- D7000<br>

Lenses:</p>

<ol>

<li>18-105 (Kit Lens)</li>

<li>70-300 G f/4.5-5.6</li>

</ol>

<p>I am generally into Landscape and Nature. Above both the lenses are good and works like a charm with my D7K.<br>

Now, I wish to explore on the Macro side. For this by considering my budget and reviews, it seems I have 2 lenses shortlisted,</p>

<ol>

<li>Nikkor 105mm VR f/2.8 Macro and</li>

<li>Tamron 90mm VC f/2.8 Macro.</li>

</ol>

<p>However, I am a bit confused with exactly which lens should I go for.<br>

I would really wish to have a lens which I can use as a go-around lens which I can use for Macro and also other purpose. (Not sure if I am thinking on the right side here).<br>

Also, when I am aware that VR and AF is not much help when doing Macro 1:1. <br>

My major interest in Macro would be around Flowers, Butterflies or other similar creatures and last but not the least reptiles (Can't have 1:1 here really). <br>

I would love to hear from the experts with their opinion in helping in decide what could be the better option for me.</p>

<p>Cheers,<br>

Kunjal</p>

<p>Using your camera the lenses give you the effective 135mm or 157mm view. You need to figure out visually what works better for you. My own preference is 90mm, since I'm using it on FX format and I can also use it as a portrait lens.</p>

<p>Anyway, in the end you might consider that 150mm or perhaps 60mm would be way better for you. Each of us have different needs for different subjects.</p>

<p>As to the two that you mentioned, they are both very good.</p>

<p>Les</p>

If you are interested in macro, either lens in fine. Rather, I would pay attention to the tripod and head.

<p>mm When mentioning reptiles, what kind of reptiles are you thinking of ?<br>

For some of them a bit more distance could be bennificial.... :-)<br>

In that case i would also think of the 150mm F2.8 Sigma lens...</p>

<p>Thanks all for your response.<br>

@Shun, what kind of Tripod and Lens would you suggest. </p>

<p>Based on your suggestion, I can think of going for Tam-90mm + Tripod.</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Kunjal</p>

<p>I haven't used the Nikkor, but I had my hands on the Tamron 90mm last week and it's really good, very sharp and has internal focusing unlike its predecessor. Silent and pretty quick on focus.</p>

<p>As said, for macro, you cannot go really wrong with either lens.<br>

But, for reptiles, unless they're caged, you'll probably have more success with a telelens (such as you 70-300VR) working as close as possible. The working distances of both Tamron and Nikon are way too short with most reptiles. <a href="/photo/10757498">This photo</a>, for example, was done with a 300 f/4 on APS-C at approx. 2-2,5 metres of the lizzards. If I would have wanted to make a similar photo with my 100mm macro, I would have had been at a distance of approx. 60-80 cm instead - and that wasn't going to work, really.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> <a href="/photo/10757498" rel="nofollow">This photo</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>doesnt look very sharp in my eyes</p>

<p>Mag, I didn't put this photo up for critique here, but as an example of subject matter, lens choice, working distance. If you want to critique my photos, you can do so via a normal critique, please. Putting it here just adds clutter to this thread.</p>

<p>I own the Tamron 90mm and I cannot speak for the other lens. Sometimes I see images with the Nikkor and briefly wonder if I made a mistake. I usually work with the equipment I have instead of switching frequently which can be a costly affair. I am very happy with my Tamron.<br>

Shooting a backlit subject with highlights in the background you can get some very artistic bokeh. It led me to experiment with just bokeh images as in my Fine arts folder. Here is an example:<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/16725894 </p>

<p>Kunjal, it sounds like you don't have a tripod yet. Once you start shooting macros, that becomes important. So please make sure you budget for that.</p>

<p>So far your equipment are fairly small cameras and even the 70-300 is not huge. At this point you can get away with a fairly small tripod, such as Gitzo series 2 ones. Gitzos tend to be expensive; I would get something equivalent that is made from carbon fiber and get a ball head. You probably want one tall enough so that the camera can reach your eye level when you are standing, and it should also allow you to shoot close to the ground from a low angle. Search around for suggestions. If you become serious in photography, the chance is that you will gradually upgrade your tripod a few times. If the budget allows, you may want to get something better so that you don't need to upgrade in a few months or a year.</p>

<p>Since you are using a DX format D7000, even a 90mm macro is quite long. It will be good for capturing one isolated flower but most likely too long for a group of flowers. I have three macro lenses: 60mm, 105mm (the AF-S VR), and 200mm and I use them on FX (as well as DX). For reptiles, you are probably better off using your 70-300mm lens so that you can keep a distance from your subject so that you won't spook them, at least not as much.</p>

<p>You may consider starting with Nikon's 40mm/f2.8 DX macro. I don't own one but I had a test sample that I used to write the review for photo.net: http://www.photo.net/equipment/nikon/lenses/40mm-f2.8-af-s-dx-micro/review/<br /> It is a fairly inexpensive lens and optically quite good. However, if you intend to capture 1:1, that is the wrong lens for that purpose. See the follow up discussion in the review. The 40mm can reach 1:1 but your working distance will be very short and practically useless. I l also have sample images using that lens: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1014835</p>

<p>As a small JPEG, Wouter's lizard image looks ok to be. I wouldn't evaluate sharpness with such a small JPEG anyway. But it point out the fact that in macro range, depth of field is shallow and any camera shake is greatly magnified. That is why a tripod is important in a lot of macro situations.</p>

<p>P.S. I have never used the Tamron 90mm macro, but I am quite sure that it is an excellent lens. Most macro lenses from all the major brands are very good lenses.</p>

<p>the 105 VR will be a bit long for portraits on a DX body if you are thinking of it as a double-duty lens. however, that working distance might be what you want for bugs and flowers. the tamron 90 is well-regarded as a classic, and at 135 FLE it might be a bit more useful for portraits. there's also a VC version of it if you want to go that route, as well as a tamron 60/2 DX-only lens which approximates the FL of the 90mm on FX, and thus would probably be better as a portrait lens than either of the FX macros.</p>

<p>I would be remiss, however, if i didn't mention two other candidates: the Tokina 35/2.8 AT-X and the Tokina 100/2.8 aka "bokina." both are fairly inexpensive and quite good. the 35, or "mini-bokina" is the sharpest 35mm lens for DX bodies around -- better than the nikon 35/1.8 and the sigma 30/1.4. it has the closest focusing distance of any DX lens AFAIK and works as a normal lens for walkaround use. at 52.5mm FLE, it's a little bit wider than the nikon 40. bokeh is otherworldly and while 1:1 isnt really feasible w/out a tripod, the shorter focal length makes it more handholdable. really just a fun lens for casual macros, with a price that is very reasonable if you're experimenting and seeing how far you want to go into the macro world.</p><div></div>

<p>Kunjai, first of all, I am as guilty as anybody for suggesting other focal lengths. If you find the different options confusing, which is quite understandable, I would suggest you try out your current two lenses, especially the 18-105 and see which macro focal length works best for your photography. Generally speaking, the shorter one would be good for a group of flowers. The longer ones, 90mm, 105mm with the DX crop are better to isolate one subject e.g. one butterfly.</p>

<p>I have owned the non VR version of the Nikon 105mm and currently own the Tamron 90mm (as well as 60mm and 200mm Nikon "micro" lenses.) </p>

<p>In my opinion, the Tamron 90mm is better optically than the Nikon 105mm. It is the only non-Nikon lens I have ever kept. The Nikon is good, though, but being that the Tamron is better and cheaper, I would go Tamron.</p>

<p>As others have suggested, almost every macro lens is good. You can find the Phoenix/Vivitar 100mm pretty cheaply and I hear good things about that one, too. One thing I would avoid: zooms that have a "macro" label. That is a marketing ploy and at best means the zoom focuses relatively closely. You want a fixed focal length macro for best results.</p>

<p>Since you mentioned butterflies in particular, I find both autofocus and the VR features to be useful for photographing butterflies.- a number of butterfly shots won't be 1:1, which I think that a number of the other people posting concentrated on, but are much closer than the minimum focusing distance of normal lenses.. I used the Nikon 105 mm on both my D200 and D300 cameras (before I purchased a D800), but in contrast to flowers, these guys tend to move around. I found the autofocus and stabilization of the Nikon to be very good. I haven't ever tried the Tamron so I can't compare the two. I also have the 60 mm Micro-Nikkor, which I like, but it gets very little use compared to the 105 mm.</p>

<p>Without having used the Tamaron lens - I really recommend the Nikkor 105 AF-S. Its the lens most often on my camera... I quite enjoy the focal length on a DX body as a walk around lens - though it takes a bit of getting used to. I've also found it quite useful for shooting moving things (its fast enough, though AF is not speediest - but again you can compensate) particularly inside small rooms. I train dogs and our indoor, winter space is not that large so this lens is the perfect focal length to get tight face and dog shots without getting too close. <br>

Its also wonderfully sharp, and macro is fun - but what was said before, a tripod is very handy, one thing to consider depending on what you are shooting - I often have the camera hanging upside off the bottom of the tripod (reverse the centre post) for macro work of small things on the ground...</p>

<p>If you just wanted a macro lens for tripod use then either is fine. You mention other uses, though, and therefore the 105VR will be more versatile. It is a longer focal length and has AF-S and VR, all useful in a medium telephoto lens.</p>

<p>IMHO it is a mistake to pay too much attention to what happens at 1:1 unless you intend to shoot often at this magnification. Given your subjects I doubt that you will do so.</p>

<p>By the way, either of these lenses will be <em>much better</em> than the 70-300VR at its minimum focus. Not even close. You would probably get better results cropping from the 105VR than shooting at 300mm</p>

<p>If you aren't really that sure how much you're going to use micro, another thing you can do is to buy a used manual focus macro. I have a 55mm f3.5 and it's the sharpest lens I've ever owned.</p>

<p>You won't be using a lot of AF with the macro anyway, so, since you have a camera that can handle MF lenses well, why pay for it.</p>

<p>Because...</p>

<p>If you get a used macro MF lens, you can ALSO afford to buy an 85mm f1.8G, for probably less (together) than getting a new Nikon 105 VR. I'd rather have an 85G AND a MF 105 micro than just the 105 VR...</p>

<p>That said, if I was definitely going to buy one of those two originally mentioned lenses, I'd get the Tamron.</p>

<p>Thanks all for your response.<br>

Honestly I can't say that I don't own a tripod. The only thing is its a very old Tripod which my Grandpa had own and now I am using it. Although its quite old, I must say its pretty sturdy and stable. Last time I had tested this on a beach with 18-105 attached to my D7K which makes the combination heavy when compared to 70-300, and it was really windy at that time I must say and I did get pretty good result there.<br>

With the reviews, I had an inclination towards 105-VR but wasn't really sure if I was making the right decision. <br>

I would be much grateful if you guys could suggest some name which I could consider for Tripod. As I am thinking of owning a 300mm F4 soon.</p>

<p>Cheers,<br>

Kunjal</p>

<p>Tripod choices can be as difficult as lens choices. You may not be able to get one tripod to satisfy all of your desires. In general I would suggest a carbon fiber tripod; there is now a broad selection in both sizes and price ranges and they offer better damping and weight characteristics compared to metal counterparts. There is a dated, but still excellent reference by Thom Hogan on the subject of tripods and ball heads, http://www.bythom.com/support.htm. I use a Gitzo 3530S (no center column) with a Really Right Stuff BH-55 for longer focal length lenses and landscapes-great stability but very heavy. For closeups ( flowers, etc), traveling and hiking, I use a Gitzo 1542T with a Really Right Stuff BH-30 ballhead; for close to ground level shooting the center column can be removed and it's very compact and light for travelling.. This combination is probably one that will part of the inheritance for my grandchildren. I'm not familiar with the Bogen/Manfrotto tripods which, I believe are somewhat less expensive. I think that paying a lot of attention to buying a good ball head for your uses may be as important as the tripod choice.</p>

<p>Kunjal -- I have the earlier Micro Nikkor 105mm non-VR f/2.8 lens. Like the VR cousin, it get's all the way to 1:1 by changing focal length. This has the result that the field of view changes when you change focus. May not make much difference, but it's annoying when you are trying to do a critical composition with the camera fixed on a tripod. </p>

<p>The lens is excellent for hand-held short of things the size of a flower or a human fist; much tougher if you want to do a nice shot of a coin or a watch.</p>

<p>If you want to shoot a flower or a necklace or a 10" animal, the AF lenses are great. Probably great too for butterflies. For a coin, watch, or other object around 1", I suggest one of the older manual focus lenses. The 55 f/3.5 Nikkor is a gem at a very reasonable price. I also have the 105 f/4 and the optically similar bellows lens. All these are great. The Vivitar 90mm macro is a classic. I'm not familiar with the 90mm Tamron./</p>

<p>Kunjal, if you already access to a tripod, although not an ideal one, maybe just use that for the time being. There is no simple answer to the tripod question. After using what you have, hopefully you'll gradually find out what you really need. I bought my first serious tripod perhaps 25 years ago, and over the years between my wife and me we have over half a dozen Gitzo carbon-fiber tripod. Still, last year I added a huge tripod due to a new big lens I have. If you are serious about photography, the chance is that your first tripod (or second, third ...) won't be your last one.</p>

<p>Other than being a bit on the expensive side, you really can't go wrong with the Nikon 105mm/f2.8 AF-S VR macro. I have had the much older AF version for 24 years and added the AF-S VR a couple of years ago. But again, on the D7000, that macro lens is on the longer side, good for isolated flower and perhaps butterfly, not so good for a group of flowers. But you can always add the fairly inexpensive 40mm/f2.8 DX macro later on.</p>

<p>It looks like you have thought it through enough. Just do it.</p>

<p>if you are going for photos of butterflys/reptiles i would look for a used non os sigma 150mm. <br>

my other fave setup for the d7000 and d7100 is the nikon 300f4 af-s with the nikon tc14ii.<br>

the later set up will allow me to "fill the frame" with an average uk sized dragonfly or one of our larger (for the uk) butterflys from its minimum focus distance of 3 feet. it doubles as a great birding lens too.<br>

ok, so its over budget, lacks vr and is on the large side but it is a setup well worth having. it takes a little while to master it and get the best results but when you do you will get superbly sharp results. </p>

<p>Thanks for helping me with your replies.<br>

I have got 105mm Nikkor. <br>

Took some sample snaps and results are simply awesome.<br>

Will shortly post some pics.</p>

<p>Cheers,<br>

Kunjal</p>

<p>I own the older non VC in Sony mount and it is a super sharp lens. I had a chance to compare it in the store to the newer VC model and other than VC optically they are both very, very sharp. If you don't have to have VC and want to save a bunch of $$$ the non VC is quite affordable. I purchased a LN lens for less than $300 from my local camera store. </p>