Nikon Or Tamron

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by Gazruss, Jul 12, 2008.

  1. If money was not a problem, and you had these 2 in your hands looking at them, which one would you choose

    Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G ED IF AF-S VR

    Or

    Tamron AF 90mm f/2.8 Di

    For portrait work and macro???
     
  2. Igor

    Igor

    May 15, 2005
    Ukraine, Europe
    I'd drop both and go for old Nikon AF 105/2.8. :smile:
     
  3. barisaxer

    barisaxer

    278
    Apr 6, 2006
    Albany OR
    for portraits the vr would be a help. I prefer manual focus for macro so the older lenses do great. I prefer af on portraits so for you use the vr wins.
     
  4. The Nikkor. When doing macro work, especially bugs, every bit of reach helps. Plus the added benefit of VR as well.
     
  5. Garrie, I have the new micro-Nikkor 105mm F2.8 etc. and love it. The VRII works great. I have used it for macro (VR is not that helpful below say 5:1 magnification) and portraits. The VR is not used if camera is mounted on a tripod, but is very helpful if used handheld. IQ and color clarity are both excellent IMO.
     
  6. rolsen

    rolsen

    316
    Apr 12, 2008
    Finland
    If you hate CA, go for Tamron -I sold my 105 VR 'cause of it, but might be that I had a lemon.
     
  7. Nuteshack

    Nuteshack Guest

    prefer the t90 ...but i like doing this on the cheap..lol
    ..however, i consider the t90 to have the best of the bunch.

    ;-))
     
  8. whyhan

    whyhan

    301
    Jun 14, 2006
    SF Bay Area
    "If money was not a problem"?
    Nikon 200mm micro or zeiss 100mm macro.
     
  9. jlcabral

    jlcabral

    31
    Jul 12, 2008
    Colorado
    I'm a new Nikon Cafe member, but feel compelled to respond to this since I have both lenses. Originally, as a new macro flower photographer, I bought the Tamron 90mm because everything I read said that if one was doing macro, one almost had to be on a tripod. I couldn't figure out any reason to pay $250 more for VR (Nikon 105) if I had to be on a tripod.

    Recently, I took a macro photography class and almost everyone there had the Nikon 105mm. Many were doing images handheld, and after a year with a tripod, I would kill to be able to do macro handheld. So now I have both. The Nikon 105 is good handheld with VR up to 1:1, maybe a bit less depending on subject movement (wind), etc., but anything beyond that still requires a tripod. I use extension tubes a lot, and thus have to have the stability when doing 2:1 and beyond.

    At first I thought I would sell my Tamron, but now I've decided to keep it. The reason is that it is much smaller and lighter weight, and there are days that is important to me. The bottom line in choosing one lens over the other for me is whether one wants to be able to do close-ups handheld. There's also the price issue, of course!
     
  10. 105 VR is one of my favorite lenses. Works well with TCs too to make a good 150 with the 1.5, and 180 with the 1.7. The VR works nicely, sure not at 1:1, but in a lot of close up situations it is helpful, but it only helps with camera shake (to be clear). The focusing is quiet, useful, and very fast (for a macro lens). Another bonus is that the lens maintains its length when focusing as well. I like to thank Nikon and the 105VR for forcing me to switch to Nikon nearly a year ago from Konica Minolta (now Sony). Once i tried it on the D200, I was SOLD! :)
     
  11. Price and weight not a consideration - the Nikkor.

    More practically, the Tamron.
     
  12. I prefer the images from the Tamron and the Tokina to the Nikkor after owning them, but I am always on a tripod and I focus manually so...there's that.
     
  13. Leif

    Leif

    Feb 12, 2006
    England
    I have no interest in portraits, just macro. I bought the Tamron 90mm F2.8 DI macro, but I am not so keen on the pastel character to the images, and the warm colour cast. Most people do like the IQ though. They are not faults, just characteristics. It is VERY sharp, probably more so than the Nikon AFD lens.

    Anyway, I bought the Nikon 105mm F2.8 AFD as the image characteristics are consistent with the other Nikon macros that I own.

    Regarding the new lens, AF is useless for macro work, and I usually use a tripod, so VR is pointless. But, if you are using the lens with a macro flash, such as the R1, then VR might be of use (even though the flash will freeze the subject) because it will freeze the image in the viewfinder, allowing critical focussing.

    Several aspects turned me off the 105mm AFS VR. Firstly you cannot set the actual aperture, only the effective one. Secondly the front element is not recessed, so you need to use the hood. But the hood is huge, and significantly reduces working distance. I worry that it might get in the way when photographing small insects.

    BTW these thoughts on the VR lens are just thoughts as I have not used it.
     
  14. Jeff Lee

    Jeff Lee

    May 16, 2006
    Oregon
    I like the weight of the T90, BTW the image quality from the T90 is as good or better than the nikon products in my opinion....its the only non-nikkor I have and I love it.
     
  15. Thanks for all your opinions.....

    Now just need to rob the bank... :)
     
  16. buellXB9

    buellXB9

    413
    Feb 16, 2007
    Qc, Canada
    Pierre B