Another macro lens question- which one?

[leonard_forte1]

I have narrowed down my macro lens choices to either the Tamron 90mm or the

Nikkon 105mm VR lens. The nikkor is 2X the price. Is it worth paying twice the

price for the nikkor when (from what I read( the Tamron is just as sharp,

although not as well built). Any comments or suggestions would be helpful.

[leonard_forte1]

I am using a D200.

[ronald_moravec1]

Yes it is worth twice as much. It is too long for a sole micro for a D200.

 

Third party lenses do not always work when cameras are upgraded, ie D200 to D300.

 

It`s a pity we have this crop factor problem. I ended up with the 60 2.8 for my D200.

[paul_rebmann]

Hi Leonard !

 

I'm using the Nikon AFS 105 lens for some days now and I am very very pleased about it. I haven't used the Tamron so I cna't compare them BUT I have no complaint at all with the Nikon. I enjoy using it really much ! Regards Paul

[raffal]

How about Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX "DG" AF Telephoto Macro ??? half what would you pay for nikkor...No VR, so what you should use tripod anyway,:)Raf

[malcolm_farrow]

Depends if the VR facility or AFS will be useful to you. If not, save the money and go with the Tamron or Sigma.

[dwight200]

I have the 105/2.8 Nikkor and I like it a lot. As far as VR is concerned, it isn't that useful for macro, rather it works best at medium to long range subjects. Depending on what you're shooting macro, the tripod may be either needed or not. I had a lot of Monarch butterflies last September and I got several good pictures (out of about 300) using the 105, handheld.<br><br>

 

I didn't have much problem with motion (except of the subject) since I was using as high a shutter speed as I could. My biggest complaint about the 105 Nikkor is that the autofocus is a bit flaky for close-up subjects. It sometimes racks out to infinity and back. For the butterflies I was using spot focusing because there was a lot of vegetation around that matrix focusing would sometimes lock onto.<br><br>

 

Haven't tried the Tamron or Sigma, so I have no opinion on them. You might consider looking at the <a href="http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Nikkor%20/%20Nikon%20Lens%20Tests">PhotoZone lens test website</a> which gives a good review of the Nikkor, but I don't see the Tamron or Sigma there.

[eric_arnold]

IMO it's only worth it if you also plan to use it as a portrait lens. VR might help with some handheld macro shots but for serious work, you'll probably be using manual focus and a tripod. the nikkor isn't twice as sharp as the tamron, but it is twice as aethetically pleasing. tamron makes some ugly lenses with plasticky builds, but have good IQ (at least their SP line).

 

if you already have a good tripod, and also plan on using the lens for portraits, consider the nikon. if not, get the tamron and put the extra $$ toward a good ballhead and tripod kit.

[mr. sullen]

I have the Sigma 105 macro and I find it to be my favorite of all my lenses. Nikon is always twice as much or even three or four times. I have not seen any heads up photos so I cant say for sure. All I know is I love that Sigma. It has been working on my D300 but I have not done an upgrade yet so I am not sure if what Ronald says is right but like I said I am not sure. They say it's all about the glass on the Nikons and so maybe you will get sharper photos but you have to ask yourself how big you plan on printing those photos, 20x30? If so maybe consider the Nikon if not well I would think Tamron or Sigma would be fine.

[raffal]

Sigma 105mm sample

[leonard_forte1]

I wouold like to use the lens as a portrait (or landscape) lens as well, thats why I think the VR might be useful.

[dan_k6]

After reading through a lot of posts here, I came to the conclusion that most people think that the 105mm VR is too sharp for portraits and for macro, it's a G lens.

 

Did you try looking at the 105mm 2.8D I think it's a better pick for strictly macro work and it's very sharp so I'm sure you could use it for portrait and landscape work.

 

I get mine tomorrow. If you are considering the Tamron, take a look at the 2.8D

[leonard_forte1]

Daniel, what lens are you getiing tomorrow? Is there such as thing as "too sharp" ? I can always unsharpen it in PS.

[dan_k6]

Leonard,

 

I'm getting the 105mm 2.8D. The version that was produced up until 2006 when the 105mm 2.8 VR came out.

 

I've seen portraits with the 85 1.4 @ 1.4 and even 2.8 and there's just something about those pictures. The eyes are razor sharp but the other facial features seem "just right." Like others have said, you don't want to take a picture of a middle aged woman and have it show all her imperfections.

 

I'm sure you can unsharpen in PS but it just takes more of your time. I bought the 105mm 2.8D strictly for macro work. I have a 70-200VR that seems to work just fine for portraits.

[leonard_forte1]

Daniel, post a sample macro shot if you can.

[peter_koralis]

If your sole purpose is macro, then better to go for the older AF Nikkor or even better the MF Nikkor.

 

The new AFS VR version seems to be less of a macro lens compared to its older brothers (being a G lens) but has great bokeh and beautiful handling (VR and size /weight) for portraits.

 

This may interest you

http://nikonglass.blogspot.com/2008/02/nikkor-105mm-f28g-afs-vr.html

[dan_k6]

Well, I got my 105mm 2.8D today. It's spotless. AF is really slow though even with the limiter on.

 

It's really sharp! I paid $465 shipped for this lens. Do you think this was a good deal? I need to start practicing my macro work as it is harder than I expected. DOF is really shallow.