Micro Nikkor 85mm vs. Tamron Macro 90mm

[ulrich_brandl]

<p>Searching for a decent macro lens for my D7000 I am torn between the F: 3.5 85mm VR Micro Nikkor and the good old Tamron f:2.8 90mm. The 105mm is too heavy (for my purposes), the 60mm too short. The problem is the "second use" of the lens. I would like to use the lens for portaiture and for gaining some reach beyond my standard zoom when I have only two lenses in my bag. For me it is difficult to judge if the half stop advantage of the Tamron gives so much more background blur that it weighs out the advantage of VR in general use as a short tele. I have no plans for big'n heavy FX, therefore this isn't an issue. The other problem is that I can't find informations how these lenses keep up with the resolution of the D7000 sensor. DX Tests on photozone.de are all done with the D200. Your opinions experiences are valuable.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I'm happy with my Tamron, but then I've only got a D700, so it's not so picky about sharpness in the centre of the frame. Mine doubles as a short portrait lens, for which it's "okay". I've (obviously) not tried the DX 85mm, but KR's "review" expresses some doubts about the sharpness; VR won't help much for macro, but I'm sure the ergonomics are better than the Tamron, which is a little odd. Only you can decide whether VR beats 2/3 of an f-stop - for portraits, unless you're hand-held in very low light, I'd say go with the aperture for the bokeh, but YMMV. Neither is going to make the background go away like an 85 f/1.4 or a 135 f/2, but they won't have such colour fringes either. I'll admit that I'm mildly tempted to supplement mine with an 85 f/1.8, though - you're going for the cheap end of macro (no bad thing there), and while it's a passable portrait option, don't expect it to compete with the dedicated portrait lenses. (Aside: the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro probably *is* a good portrait/macro combo, but it's a lot of money and a bit long for DX...) I hope that helps.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>I don't think that you can better the Tamron for image quality. I had one for Canon and was so impresssed I bought another to fit my D700. I've tested mine critically and both samples appear to be diffraction limited from f/4 onwards (if you're not familiar with the term "diffraction limited" it basically means that you can't get a lens with better resolution). You can also confidently use this lens wide open and it accurately relays its <em>true </em>working F-number to the camera, meaning that you can get down to f/64 at 1:1.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Ulrich, I think the main problem is finding users of the Nikon. Like many, I found it the most baffling lens introduction Nikon did in recent times - it's probably not a bad lens, but it has too little going for it; the 3rd party competition is very strong. It essentially seems there are no bad macro-lenses. I own the Tokina 100mm f/2.8 macro, which is a very fine lens. It is not top-sharp wide open on my D300; from f/4 on, no issues. And for macro work, wide open is quite useless (too little DoF), also for portraits given the work distance, using it wide open does not happen too much anyway.<br />I do like the out of focus rendering of the Tokina, and rate it very high in this aspect. Build quality is ahead of competitors, and it's cheaper. But harder to find.<br>

And for the Sigma 105mm and Tamron 90mm you will find similar praise. So, odd enough, the Nikon is the bet here, while the others are established performers. Given your shortlist, I would say, play it safe and get the Tamron. It won't disappoint.</p>

<p><em>(note: if you want a seriously nice portrait lens for the D7000, without the big money needed for a f/1.4 85mm or DC lens, a Nikkor Ai(S) 105 f/2.5 won't cost too much, and it's extremely good; if you do not mind manual focus. Quite long on DX, but the results never disappoint me)</em></p>

[ulrich_brandl]

<p>To Andrew and Gerard: Many thanks for your answers. It is clear that neither of the alternatives I consider cannot compete with a "real" portrait lens in terms of bokeh. Currently I am looking for a minimalist equipment I can easily carry around that fits most aspects I am interested in. Most of the subjects can be shot with a standard zoom - but then there are many interesting small things - and the people I meet. For "serious" portraits I still have some medium format gear. My Nikon lens lineup will first be a compromise between bulk and optical usefulness (and quality). It looks as if the Tamron would be the better deal.</p>

[jannekaakinen]

<p>I've shot with both lenses of them and both are very good lenses. I personally bought Tamron 90mm f/2.8 for myself, but that decision was based on that I also shoot film so I never even considered the Nikon 85/3.5.</p>

<p>The VR on Nikon 85/3.5 surely helps some if you're shooting portraits hand held at slower shutter speeds (without flash). In macro shooting the Nikon has one benefit over the Tamron: Nikon is an IF lens (Internal focusing). But the Nikon does not have a focus limiter, which was quite annoying at times. In terms of sharpness there were not much difference that I noticed, but then again, I did the test with Fuji S5 Pro. For my taste the bokeh was somewhat better on Tamron than what it was on Nikon.</p>

<p>I haven't tested them on D7000, but I have D7000, Tamron 90/2.8 and Nikon 85/3.5 at my workplace. Unfortunately I'm way too busy to conduct a proper test, but I'll see if I can take few shots later this week with those combos and post you some samples.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>For me it is difficult to judge if the half stop advantage of the Tamron gives so much more background blur that it weighs out the advantage of VR in general use as a short tele.<br>

It is clear that neither of the alternatives I consider cannot compete with a "real" portrait lens in terms of bokeh.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why is that "clear"? The Tamron will surprise you: it has excellent bokeh at portrait distances and at macro distances. I was pretty used to macros having pretty harsh bokeh (the Nikon 55mm f2.8 and 105mm f2.8 sure do) and the Tamron really surprised me.</p>

<p>I'm not familiar enough with the bokeh of the 85mm f3.5 VR to comment.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>the 85? nah. that's a macro for punters who cant afford the 105 VR and arent willing to search for the 55 micro-nikkor. the tamron is legendary. for me the choice was tamron 90 vs. tokina 100. i ended up with the tokina for the better build and sharpness @2.8. but the tamron is probably better overall optically, by a hair, and does have a rep as a 'bokeh lens' (the tokina's not bad in that respect btw). the tamron's only two knocks are featherweight build and softness @2.8, which is irrelevant for macro and could be useful for portraits when soft focus is needed. i can't complain about the tokina but i dont think you can go wrong with the tamron 90. as for the 85, it's specs are just too weird for me to consider it, plus its a DX lens. it would have been a different story were it f/2 with VR.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote><blockquote>It is clear that neither of the alternatives I consider cannot compete with a "real" portrait lens in terms of bokeh.</blockquote>Why is that "clear"?</blockquote>

 

<p>This is my fault for using "bokeh" to mean <i>amount</i> of background defocus as well as its quality. The "true" portrait lenses (85mm f/1.4 and 1.8, 105mm and 135mm f/2, arguably the supertelephotos) <i>will</i> throw the background <i>more</i> out of focus than the lenses under discussion. They'll also gain a few artifacts to go with it - the quality of the bokeh is certainly open to debate (e.g. I love how smooth the bokeh of my 135 DC is, but I hate its colour fringes); whether you <i>need</i> the background to be that far out of focus depends on your surroundings and portrait style.<br />

<br />

My Tamron plugs the gap between my 50 f/1.8 and my 135 f/2.8 AI (this happens to be a cheap spot in my lens range, if you ignore the 135 f/2 that I really need to sell soon). It might be nice for me to have f/1.8 - I don't consider the rendering of the f/1.4 85mm lenses to be worth the price (and I know I'm in the minority) - but f/2.8 is "good enough", and 90mm still gives me a macro that's long enough for a reasonable working distance; for me, a 105mm micro was too expensive and too close to the 135mm end of my gap; had I more money to burn, I'd probably have considered the 85mm f/1.8 and the 100mm Tokina or 105 Nikkor, plugging the gap with two lenses instead of one, and then lusted after a 150mm f/2.8 Sigma macro. If I really want the background to go away, I have some big telephotos. On a DX body, I'd start to worry that a 100mm is a bit long for portraits - I have nothing against the Tokina or the Sigmas, otherwise, and more working distance in a macro is usually a good thing.<br />

<br />

In the OP's position, 90mm on DX is 135mm FX equivalent - which Nikon seem to think is a good portrait lens length, at least for head-and-shoulders - and a bit more aperture and focal length is good for making the background go. Is there much between them? Doubtful - but where there's an advantage, except for the VR and ergonomics (and the push/pull doesn't bother me), it's with the Tamron. Plus, you can always pick up a film body as a cheap back-up, even if you never plan to get an FX body - that's what I do when going on holiday and I want to accommodate camera failure.</p>

[CvhKaar]

<p>Ulrich,<br />If you don't mind a 150mm , the Sigma 150mm 2.8 ex Macro is also a real Gem , which by some ( including myself) is even higher rated than the Tamron 90mm ...<br />Its 9 blades aperture results in a smooth bokeh for portraits, although you need to keep a bit more distance with this one from your model ( also good for bokeh..).<br>

Here's a review : <a href="http://www.dpnotes.com/sigma-150mm-macro-for-nikon/">http://www.dpnotes.com/sigma-150mm-macro-for-nikon/</a><br>

<br />And here's what they think at Photozone of this lens : <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/304-sigma-af-150mm-f28-apo-ex-hsm-macro-dg-d-review--test-report?start=2">http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/304-sigma-af-150mm-f28-apo-ex-hsm-macro-dg-d-review--test-report?start=2</a></p>

[sem_svizec]

<p>The 85/3.5VR does not work for portraits at its wider apertures - sharp-edged bokeh, loCA. See portrait-like samples in the Lenstip review. But it does have a bit longer working distance at 1:1 if you care (about 12cm vs 10cm). <br>

You may consider the Tamron 60/2 DX macro, non-extending IF, has 10cm working distance at 1:1 (does not shrink the FL like the Nikkor 60 G, 5cm WD), very low CA, nice bokeh (nicer than the 50/1.8D). Lacks the AF limit switch. <br>

And the Sigma 150. </p>

[ulrich_brandl]

<p>Thanks to all, you have convinced me that the 85 doesn't seem to be the way to go. I will throw a closer look on the Tokina (I wasn't aware of its existence) and the Tamron and go with one of these.<br>

Happy shooting<br>

Ulrich</p>

<p> </p>

[jannekaakinen]

<p>Ulrich, Tamron 90mm f/2.8 is an excellent choice. I never used Tokina 100mm, but if weight is an issue, Tamron weights only 400g, Tokina weights 540g (and Nikon 105mm weights 790g).</p>

<p>For future reference, I took couple test shots with D7000 comparing the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 against Nikon 85mm f/3.5. The results were as expected, Tamron is sharper and has better bokeh. Tamron also seems to let more light through to the sensor at equal apertures. Tamron lost only in one aspect to the Nikon - there was more CA on Tamron, but that was cured by stopping down.</p>

<p>The following pic includes two 100% crops, testing infinity/near infinity sharpness. I took numerous shots with each lens and chose the best ones. Tamron was sharper at fully open aperture than what Nikon was stopped down! At portrait distances the difference was not as dramatic, but still there seemed to be a bit more detail in shots taken with Tamron.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[jannekaakinen]

<p>Here is a shot comparing the bokeh on both lenses, Tamron being more pleasing to my eye:</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[jannekaakinen]

<p>Nikon 85/3.5 has a rather ugly way to render the bokeh highlights into "cateye"-shape, while Tamron has a pleasing bokeh with nice round highlights.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[jannekaakinen]

<p>Finally a macro shot, these are also 100% crops. Note that Tamron lets more light pass through the lens. When compared against Nikon 85/3.5, the slightly darker/contrastier output of Nikon might seem to be sharper, but that's more or less optical illusion: adding contrast in PP to Tamron shot taking it to equal level with Nikon makes the Tamron look slightly sharper.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[zack_zoll]

<p>Looks like the consensus is better image quality vs. weather sealing and VR. Which is good, because that's what I was going to say anyway :)</p>