the Tamaron 90 macro is going back

[Nuteshack]

what can i say? after putting this fine lens through the paces i came to the realizaton that -> i'm a nikon snob...and there's no just repentance for this either..after all, i bought a nikon dslr cuz i dig nikon optics:Guns:

 

[dlee79]

I also do have the bias towards Nikkors... but I kept my Tamron 90... might upgrade to 105 vr later

 

[Nuteshack]

it'sa dandy lens but i'm just stuck on the nikon look...if was "more into" the macro thing maybe i would keep it,,who knows....;-))

 

[goofball]

Have you tried Tokina's 100mm? Supposedly built like a tank so it probably feels more like a Nikon than the Tamron.

 

[CrystallP]

Wow, that is surprising! The Tamron 90 mm macro lens is legendary but I agree with you, I prefer Nikon glass for lots of reasons, but one that is important to all of us, it holds it's value. I wouldn't pass up a Sigma 30 1.4 if I could try it first though! :biggrin:

I purchased a Tamron 180 macro and 17-35 2.8 a few years ago. I sold the 180 to Flew because I didn't need it at the time and wanted a 60 micro. The 17-35 was super sharp but I sold it to a friend. Anyway, the one lens that is consistently praised in the Tamron line is the 90mm macro. I tried it several times and I was super impressed. I can totally understand though. I have four Nikon micro Nikkors and I use them frequently. The 105VR is glued to my D200.

 

[ShaunK]

what can i say? after putting this fine lens through the paces i came to the realizaton that -> i'm a nikon snob...and there's no just repentance for this either..after all, i bought a nikon dslr cuz i dig nikon optics:Guns:

Nothing wrong with that! :smile: Just as recently as a year ago, I told myself I wouldn't mind buying 3rd party, but I'm right in the middle of replacing my 18-70 with a 2.8 zoom, and guess what the only contender is? You got it, the Nikkor 17-55. Sure the 3rd parties are nice, some are great, I have the Sigma 150 macro, and it's fantastic, but something just feels/seems right about the Nikon optics, and reliability. I have to save longer to buy the good Nikon glass, but that just makes it all the more special.

 

[mrsollars]

it hasn't bit me yet, but i have a feeling it will.
i have the tamron 17-50 and it's awesome. i love it. but for some reason....it's the matching set that will get me.
i've got a new wish list going and it's a lot of nikon stuff.....simply bc that's what the people here (who have the money to do so) buy and rave about.
it's like motorcycles in a way.
i got a new bike....what is it.....a yamaha..............'oh, cool'
i got a new bike...what is it.....a harley..............' OH COOOOOL!'

nikon glass has just got that 'OH COOOOL' factor.
17-55
85 1.4
180 2.8
105vr micro
all the usual suspects i guess.

 

[Nuteshack]

Have you tried Tokina's 100mm? Supposedly built like a tank so it probably feels more like a Nikon than the Tamron.

its not the build or feel of the lens itself but the "look" of the image im talking about. captures from my tokina 12-24 have that nikon "look" to em. this lens is fine buiild and feel wise.

 

[Jeff Lee]

Lens preference is really an individual thing. But for me the Tamron 90 started out as an interm (Had $275 and got a LN- from KEH). Well, I love the weight and the optical performance.

I have my share of Nikkors: 12-24, 24-85D, 80-200, and 300 AFS), but the Tamron 90 f2.8 is such a great lens, I don't think I'd get ride of it even if I got the 105VR. The light weight and how well it works with the KenkoPro 1.4 makes it a great system.

Now if I already had my D200 (which I am several weeks away from ordering) already I might get the 105VR because I have the 1.4/1.7 TCE, but honestly I can't say I've seen any optical performance on Macro shots that are better than the Tamon. Yet many say if OOF details are much nice than the Nikkor.

But as I started this post, I really do understand what you are going through. I shoot mainly with my 12/24 or 300. Yet I need zoom. Started with the 70-300ED - too slow for sweet light. Then I got an 80-200 f2.8 2r, great, great lens but gets used mainly on vacations.I thought about selling it and getting a 70-300VR, but you know what, after shooting with it I love it and even get very good results with the KenkoPro. Go for the 105VR if the cost doesn't matter, I'm sure it is a great tool.

 

[Nuteshack]

wow small world Jeff ..i'm at Doernbecher right now ...u should mosy on over :wink:

Lens preference is really an individual thing. But for me the Tamron 90 started out as an interm (Had $275 and got a LN- from KEH). Well, I love the weight and the optical performance.

I have my share of Nikkors: 12-24, 24-85D, 80-200, and 300 AFS), but the Tamron 90 f2.8 is such a great lens, I don't think I'd get ride of it even if I got the 105VR. The light weight and how well it works with the KenkoPro 1.4 makes it a great system.

Now if I already had my D200 (which I am several weeks away from ordering) already I might get the 105VR because I have the 1.4/1.7 TCE, but honestly I can't say I've seen any optical performance on Macro shots that are better than the Tamon. Yet many say if OOF details are much nice than the Nikkor.

But as I started this post, I really do understand what you are going through. I shoot mainly with my 12/24 or 300. Yet I need zoom. Started with the 70-300ED - too slow for sweet light. Then I got an 80-200 f2.8 2r, great, great lens but gets used mainly on vacations.I thought about selling it and getting a 70-300VR, but you know what, after shooting with it I love it and even get very good results with the KenkoPro. Go for the 105VR if the cost doesn't matter, I'm sure it is a great tool.

 

[goofball]

its not the build or feel of the lens itself but the "look" of the image im talking about. captures from my tokina 12-24 have that nikon "look" to em. this lens is fine buiild and feel wise.

Fair enough. Would you consider the Tokina 100mm? I'd love to know what others think of it, though my budget is strained at the moment with the purchase of 35mm (your fault still:tongue: ) and 70-300 VR.

 

[blw777]

I've started several times to replace my Tamron 90mm with a Nikkor 105/f2.8. But I just couldn't spend the money - the IQ suits me, and there's just no way to get the Nikkor without spending money that should go toward something else. (Like a 24/f2 or an 85/f1.4?)

I suppose that in the future I may well get a 105VR, but it is still hard to imagine a really good reason. So far my only real reason is that the Tamron has these 58mm filters that fit nothing else in my bag...

 

[CrystallP]

Stick with the Tamron 90mm. I have never heard anything bad about that lens and most of the images I have observed were phenomenal. I had the Tamron 180 macro (could never quite get used to it) and sold it to Flew. Eventually I purchased the 60, 70-180, 200, and finally the 105VR. I really don't need four micros, but I use them. I have Nikon LLD so bad that I had to remove my lens list from my signature! :tongue:

 

[Nuteshack]

Fair enough. Would you consider the Tokina 100mm? I'd love to know what others think of it, though my budget is strained at the moment with the purchase of 35mm (your fault still:tongue: ) and 70-300 VR.

Brian, u have the 60 already, why not just stick with that for your macro shooting?
and that 35 does flowers very nice as well...
....straight from the camera here from the Children's Hospital..no pp whatsoever

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Gr8Tr1x]

Nute, do you have anyshots form the Tamron to share with us before it goes 'Bye Bye'?

 

[Nuteshack]

Nute, do you have anyshots form the Tamron to share with us before it goes 'Bye Bye'?

ya Josh ...a few on my flickr ...i have a bunch here from the children's hospital but won't post any till we get home..:biggrin: