Macro (Nikon 105mm or Tamron 90mm)

houkee · 17th September 2009

Hi guys, I'm want to get your opinion on these two lenses, I'm thinking of getting a macro lens and at the moment, I can't decide between these two lenses. I can't seem to find much reviews on the tamron but I've heard that it's a pretty good lens.

For half the price of the Nikon 105mm, how big is the difference?

I would also like your opinion on extension tubes, I have an 18-200mm, will extension tubes come anywhere near macro lenses? How about with the addition of a macro filter?

lynxiger · 17th September 2009

I think if you don't want to pay the extra for Nikon 105 VR, then Tamron 90mm is a great lens. Can give similar sharp images, but in terms of contrast and colors it's different from 105mm due to the lens coatings etc. of lenses from 2 diff. brand. But the differences are minor you'll have to be experienced shooter to notice them. The Tamron 90mm is lighter than Nikon 105mm VR so easier to shoot hand-held. There is also older and lighter Nikon 105mm AF-D lens, but you'll have to hunt in used market, this lens is very sharp as well.

The 18-200mm and ext. tube setup is no good IMO, because too much light fall off, and there will also be vignetting if you use a close-up filter. So if you're on a budget, get the Tamron 90mm and don't bother about the ext. tubes. I used to have ext. tubes but I rarely used them.

ijnek · 17th September 2009

i got the tamron due to low cost and i read tons of reviews on it.

will be testin out the len this long weekend

commonjunks · 17th September 2009

I used tamron and can it is one of the best lens i came across.
Very sharp and clear image.

PreciousP · 17th September 2009

Here is a review that has both the Nikon and the Tamron in it.

It is also interesting to note the comment from lynxiger: "The Tamron 90mm is lighter than Nikon 105mm VR so easier to shoot hand-held". Hmmm... the lighter lens can beat the VRII feature of a Nikkor?

.Hack · 17th September 2009

Another point to note.
The front of Nikon 105 will not extend out during focusing, whereas the Tamron 90 will.
I also getting a Tamron due to the cost, and lots of good reviews on the lens.

lynxiger · 17th September 2009

Originally Posted by PreciousP

Here is a review that has both the Nikon and the Tamron in it.

It is also interesting to note the comment from lynxiger: "The Tamron 90mm is lighter than Nikon 105mm VR so easier to shoot hand-held". Hmmm... the lighter lens can beat the VRII feature of a Nikkor?

Hi PreciousP, out in the field shooting macros, VR does not really help, and besides when chasing butterflies or insects heavy lens can get you tired pretty quick. For fast insects, we need the shutter around 1/120 - 1/200 anyway. But VR is useful if you use the 105mm for portraits and other non-macro shots. If we really want to shoot with low shutter using Tamron 90mm, say for star-bursts on dew drops, we can always set the tripod up right.

fatigue · 17th September 2009

Another advantage of having a light macro lens is that
since it is light, it can survive minor knocks or even minor drop.
I guess the plastic barrel of the Tamron also helps in absorbing the impact.

felixker · 17th September 2009

Personally used the Tamron before. Super sharp. Regret selling it away to someone.

Leong23 · 17th September 2009

For sharpness, i believe 105VR is better, but Tamron 90 is not very far from it.

But personally prefer Tamron 90mm for handheld shooting due to it's weight.

Recently helping up in night survey works along coastal area, so need a lighter handheld setup. (Luckily never sold it off)

dWENZ76 · 18th September 2009

houkee,
personally I prefer N105 VR and it's really sharp but too expensive. I have tammy 90mm and it's quite sharp but to me still cannot match the N105 VR. I guess you should listen to Leong23, he is one of the best macro shooter in CS.

ijnek · 18th September 2009

i nvr held the 105vr, but the light weight of the tamron is a blessing compare to my other len which happens to be my general len...

this is a shoot i took las nite with the tamron

iso 200, 1/100, f/7.1

lynxiger · 18th September 2009

Originally Posted by ijnek

i nvr held the 105vr, but the light weight of the tamron is a blessing compare to my other len which happens to be my general len...

this is a shoot i took las nite with the tamron

iso 200, 1/100, f/7.1
...

I know you can't wait to test drive your Tamron this weekend. hehe...
Have fun chasing those naughty butts, bugs and jumpers. And later you could post in Macro forum.

ijnek · 18th September 2009

LoL...
i don't think so i will be doing much chasing, but i will be doing lots of eating...

after takin pics of the food, need to finish them up LoL...

lsisaxon · 18th September 2009

Originally Posted by ijnek

iso 200, 1/100, f/7.1

Darn.. It's lunchtime and it made me hungry.. Thunder rice?

houkee · 18th September 2009

Thanks guys, I see most people are leaning toward the tamron more.
For me, I don't find the weight a problem, as I have been lugging around my 18-200mm on my D90 and it doesn't bother me.

I still prefer the nikon due to the VR, as I might want to take portrait shots or other stuff with it. I heard there's a 4 stop diff? How huge is this difference and is it worth twice the price of the tamron as basically, it's the main difference between it and the tamron.

I heard there's a slight colour difference due to the different coatings? Does anyone have samples of these pictures?

.Hack · 18th September 2009

Originally Posted by houkee

Thanks guys, I see most people are leaning toward the tamron more.
For me, I don't find the weight a problem, as I have been lugging around my 18-200mm on my D90 and it doesn't bother me.

I still prefer the nikon due to the VR, as I might want to take portrait shots or other stuff with it. I heard there's a 4 stop diff? How huge is this difference and is it worth twice the price of the tamron as basically, it's the main difference between it and the tamron.

I heard there's a slight colour difference due to the different coatings? Does anyone have samples of these pictures?

Though not compare with the Nikon 105mm, but found a website that compare the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro Lens, Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro Lens and Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Lens.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-90mm-f-2.8-Di-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

Leong23 · 18th September 2009

Originally Posted by houkee

Thanks guys, I see most people are leaning toward the tamron more.
For me, I don't find the weight a problem, as I have been lugging around my 18-200mm on my D90 and it doesn't bother me.

I still prefer the nikon due to the VR, as I might want to take portrait shots or other stuff with it. I heard there's a 4 stop diff? How huge is this difference and is it worth twice the price of the tamron as basically, it's the main difference between it and the tamron.

I heard there's a slight colour difference due to the different coatings? Does anyone have samples of these pictures?

Worth or not is very subjective. If you don't mind the weight and the cost, Nikon 105VR can give better sharpness and contrast.

For me, out 4 macro lenses that i own, the Tamron 90 perform the worst.....but it is good and light enough to shoot record shots during survey.

For the price, Tamron 90 is consider "value for money", it wouldn't out perform the 105VR, even thought VR is useless when shooting 1:2 and beyond.

Weight of the 105VR is a problem not only handheld, but also when you mount your setup on tripod, the CG is out and do invest in a good ballhead to prevent creeping.

Remember, every mm of movement is magnifly when you are shooting macro.

Numnumball · 18th September 2009

I vote for 105VR. Was once caught in a dilemma jus like u. Couldn't decide between the 2, in the end went for 105VR, and never looked bk. I believe in the price of 105Vr very well justified. Definietly one of my fav purchase, bought it and love it! Fast and great lens for portrait work but for macro, VR is useless, everything goes manual.

It has excellent contrast and sharpness and a bokeh that is truly sublime (i double it up as a tele portrait sometimes). Optically and colors wise, imo, better than tammy.

Prefer its internal focusing rather than the tammy sticking out when focusing, like solid feel than the plasticly tammy.. Well tat's said, at e end of the day it boils down to the individual, each have their own likes and dislikes

Cheers

viix · 18th September 2009

there's also the tokina 100mm, I was in the same situation and instead got it for the extra 10mm over the tamron..

17th September 2009	#1
houkee New Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 13	Macro (Nikon 105mm or Tamron 90mm) Hi guys, I'm want to get your opinion on these two lenses, I'm thinking of getting a macro lens and at the moment, I can't decide between these two lenses. I can't seem to find much reviews on the tamron but I've heard that it's a pretty good lens. For half the price of the Nikon 105mm, how big is the difference? I would also like your opinion on extension tubes, I have an 18-200mm, will extension tubes come anywhere near macro lenses? How about with the addition of a macro filter?

17th September 2009	#2
lynxiger Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Singapore Posts: 595	Re: Macro (Nikon 105mm or Tamron 90mm) I think if you don't want to pay the extra for Nikon 105 VR, then Tamron 90mm is a great lens. Can give similar sharp images, but in terms of contrast and colors it's different from 105mm due to the lens coatings etc. of lenses from 2 diff. brand. But the differences are minor you'll have to be experienced shooter to notice them. The Tamron 90mm is lighter than Nikon 105mm VR so easier to shoot hand-held. There is also older and lighter Nikon 105mm AF-D lens, but you'll have to hunt in used market, this lens is very sharp as well. The 18-200mm and ext. tube setup is no good IMO, because too much light fall off, and there will also be vignetting if you use a close-up filter. So if you're on a budget, get the Tamron 90mm and don't bother about the ext. tubes. I used to have ext. tubes but I rarely used them. __________________ my flickr

17th September 2009	#3
ijnek Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 798	Re: Macro (Nikon 105mm or Tamron 90mm) i got the tamron due to low cost and i read tons of reviews on it. will be testin out the len this long weekend __________________ Stirring up emotions with pics - cyliew

17th September 2009	#4
commonjunks Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Jurong Posts: 480	Re: Macro (Nikon 105mm or Tamron 90mm) I used tamron and can it is one of the best lens i came across. Very sharp and clear image. __________________ 7D \| Σ 30mm f/1.4 \| 400mm f5.6L \| 580EX II

17th September 2009	#5
PreciousP Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 146	Re: Macro (Nikon 105mm or Tamron 90mm) Here is a review that has both the Nikon and the Tamron in it. It is also interesting to note the comment from lynxiger: "The Tamron 90mm is lighter than Nikon 105mm VR so easier to shoot hand-held". Hmmm... the lighter lens can beat the VRII feature of a Nikkor?

17th September 2009	#6
.Hack Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 673	Re: Macro (Nikon 105mm or Tamron 90mm) Another point to note. The front of Nikon 105 will not extend out during focusing, whereas the Tamron 90 will. I also getting a Tamron due to the cost, and lots of good reviews on the lens. __________________ \| Nikon D90 \| 17-50 f2.8 \| 80-200 f2.8 \| 50 f1.8 \| 90 f2.8 \| flickr

17th September 2009	#8
fatigue Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Blk92 Bedok North Ave4 Posts: 1,204	Re: Macro (Nikon 105mm or Tamron 90mm) Another advantage of having a light macro lens is that since it is light, it can survive minor knocks or even minor drop. I guess the plastic barrel of the Tamron also helps in absorbing the impact. __________________ 9815-1974 camera/lens repairman http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=344970

17th September 2009	#9
felixker Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 321	Re: Macro (Nikon 105mm or Tamron 90mm) Personally used the Tamron before. Super sharp. Regret selling it away to someone.

17th September 2009	#10
Leong23 Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Ming City Posts: 2,810	Re: Macro (Nikon 105mm or Tamron 90mm) For sharpness, i believe 105VR is better, but Tamron 90 is not very far from it. But personally prefer Tamron 90mm for handheld shooting due to it's weight. Recently helping up in night survey works along coastal area, so need a lighter handheld setup. (Luckily never sold it off) __________________ flickr APAD 09

18th September 2009	#11
dWENZ76 New Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 38	Re: Macro (Nikon 105mm or Tamron 90mm) houkee, personally I prefer N105 VR and it's really sharp but too expensive. I have tammy 90mm and it's quite sharp but to me still cannot match the N105 VR. I guess you should listen to Leong23, he is one of the best macro shooter in CS. __________________ Nikon D90 + Tamron 17 - 50mm F2.8 + Tamron 90mm Macro + SB900

18th September 2009	#19
Numnumball Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Central (Zion Rd) Posts: 1,843	Re: Macro (Nikon 105mm or Tamron 90mm) I vote for 105VR. Was once caught in a dilemma jus like u. Couldn't decide between the 2, in the end went for 105VR, and never looked bk. I believe in the price of 105Vr very well justified. Definietly one of my fav purchase, bought it and love it! Fast and great lens for portrait work but for macro, VR is useless, everything goes manual. It has excellent contrast and sharpness and a bokeh that is truly sublime (i double it up as a tele portrait sometimes). Optically and colors wise, imo, better than tammy. Prefer its internal focusing rather than the tammy sticking out when focusing, like solid feel than the plasticly tammy.. Well tat's said, at e end of the day it boils down to the individual, each have their own likes and dislikes Cheers __________________ *D700/D5K\|MBD10\|N17-35f2.8\|N24-70f2.8\|N70-200f2.8\|N105f2.8VR\|SB900\|SBR1 My Flickr*

18th September 2009	#20
viix Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Singapore Posts: 534	Re: Macro (Nikon 105mm or Tamron 90mm) there's also the tokina 100mm, I was in the same situation and instead got it for the extra 10mm over the tamron..