Tokina 100vs Nikon 105 (D)

Any opinions out there on these two on build quality, auto focus speed?

The Nikkor is nice enough, and I have no experience with the Tokina. However, I think you would do yourself a favor if you widened the search to include the Tamron 90mm.

The older version lacks VC, but I remain to be convinced that either VC or AF are all that useful for macro work, anyhow. Most of the time in this kind of work you have the camera on a stand or tripod.

 

Like the previous poster I think you need to consider the Tamron 90 f/2.8 Macro Lens. I don't own the Tokina but I do own the Nikon and Tamron. I use the Tamron with my Sony A77 and the Nikon with my D800. The Nikon is the better built of the two. Focus speed when doing close up work favors the Tamron but AF is slow with either lens. In favor of the Tamron is the focus speed if you are doing portrait work or general short telephoto work. The Nikon is heavy and that slows down focus speed. Image sharpness is equal IMO, I don't think you could tell two images apart if taken with both lenses. Lens prices for non VR and non VC macro lenses favors the Tamron, it can be picked up for good prices on eBay. The verdict - go with the Nikon if you're after built quality. Go for the Tamron if you want a good general purpose lens.

I own the Tokina 100. It is one of my favorite lenses. I do a lot of insect macro. You can take a look at my work to get an idea of what you can achieve. When I bought that lens I was deciding between the Nikon and the Tokina. After a lot of research and reading, I concluded that the price difference was not worth buying the Nikon.

I have the Tokina, and have briefly used the Nikon 105VR. In terms of build quality, there isn't much between them I think: the Tokina feels every bit as solid. The Nikon 105VR is heavier and larger (not necessarily advantages); the older AF-D without VR is probably very comparible in weight and size. JUst like JDM above, I have doubts with the usefulness of VR for macro, and actually autofocus is already not that useful.

 

I much like my Tokina (though I use it little); good performance, excellent out of focus rendering, I like the manual focus feel of it too, and it's priced well. Autofocus performance is nothing special, but it has a focus range limiter which does help.

 

But frankly, I think you cannot go wrong much with any of these lenses. The Sigma 105 Macro is also good. It's hard to find a bad macro lens. However, do consider that if you're using a D3x00 or D5x00 body that a number of these lenses (Tokina, Nikon AF-D version) do not have the AF motor built-in, leaving them pure manual focus lenses.

Agree with both Wouter and JDM about VR anf AF being useless, I have never used AF to shoot macro....

+ 1 to Line's comments. I also own the Tokina and very happy with it.

Since my original post, I have purchased the Tokina. I have not used it much but early results ate favorable. thanks to all for your responses.

A follow up on this thread... today I finally had the opportunity to try my Tokina 100mm with the D850 since flowers and critters are now showing up here in Canada. I could not figure out why I had an error message when trying to use the focus shift feature. It said that the feature was not available with my current camera settings. I checked all settings and could not find anything that would cause that. I tried the lens I had used before with the focus shift (24-120 Nikon) and the feature showed up as available. So, after some research on the web I found that the Tokina is not compatible with that feature. It needs AF-S or AF-P. So, that might be something to consider if you plan on using the D850 with focus shift.

The AF Micro Nikkor 105 1:2.8 D is one of the best lenses I have ever used. I only use Nikon lenses on Nikon DSLRS so have no experience with other brands, but do have a good collection of Nikon glass, old and new as a basis for comparison.

Interesting comments about the use of AF and VR when shooting macro. For me it really depends on what I am shooting and with what I am shooting. Today I was shooting a very mobile beetle with a Canon 65mm 1x-5x handheld with Nikon twin flashes which forced me into manual (no AF or VR) - tripod would have been a hindrance. The other day I was shooting a less active crane fly on a fern in a breeze with a micro-nikkor 105mm with twin flashes and I used both AF and VR. Even though the flash may make the VR irrelevant in the final image, I find it makes looking through the viewfinder easier when handheld.

 

If I'm shooting something with little or very predictable movement I'll use a tripod and perhaps a rail and no AF or VR.

 

There are many times when a tripod slows down the process particularly with an active subject. I know many people don't like to use AF when shooting macro but I find that if I can it often helps me get a shot I want.