Tokina 100vs Nikon 105 (D)

Discussion in 'Macro' started by rwa757, Mar 2, 2017.

  1. Any opinions out there on these two on build quality, auto focus speed?
     
  2. 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.

    Tamron-Macro-lens.jpg
     
  3. 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.
     
  4. 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.
     
  5. 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.
     
  6. Agree with both Wouter and JDM about VR anf AF being useless, I have never used AF to shoot macro....
     
  7. + 1 to Line's comments. I also own the Tokina and very happy with it.
     
  8. 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.
     

Share This Page