macro lens

[Greg II]

I've been looking into aquiring a macro lens. it's come down to the nikon 105mm or the tamron 90mm. I am having a hard time justifying spending double on the 105 so i'm leaning towards the 90. I just dont want to be disappointed somewhere down the line over a few hundred.. opinions on each or which direction to go? thanks, I searched for a relative thread but didn't find one and the macro section seems more like a gallery.

 

[NateS]

The image quality of the Tamron 90mm is every bit as good as the Nikon 105 VR. I'd call that one a dead even draw. What you get with the 105 VR is Vibration reduction (not as important at macro magnifications but helpful when using for other uses)...VR is useful because the 90-105mm range is a great range for portraits as well...though in good light the T90 is a great portrait lens as well.

You also get better build with the Nikon. Tamron isn't built poorly, the Nikon is just built more like a tank versus the Tamron being a hummer....do you need or want a tank or is the build of a hummer good enough for you?

The final big issue, which is probably the best advantage for the Nikon in my eyes is that the Tamron's lens changes in size when you focus closer...as in when you focus from infinity to 1:1 the lens gets longer....the Nikon is all internal focusing means that the lens won't get any longer...this could help with critters if you are approacing them....they might get scared away if the lens extends and moves...this can be countered by setting the lens near the magnification you want before approaching a subject (which I do anyway).


All of that said, I'd go with the Tamron 90mm over the Nikon 105...the advantages of the Nikon are not great enough and important enough to me to justify the price...Tamron 90mm is actually on my list of next purchases.

 

[Greg II]

Nate, that was wonderful. thank you. I already have a decent portrait lens so this next purchase would be almost totally for macro shooting. I have read a lot of reviews on my own but none are really personal.

I have been leaning towards the 90mm it just helps to have some reassurance. The high price of the 105mm makes it seem like i would be getting a product so superior to the tamron that it should be an easy decision. It's not easy though and I have yet to hear anything that truly justifies the price jump. I don't know if it makes a difference but I use a d5000.

 

[NateS]

Nate, that was wonderful. thank you. I already have a decent portrait lens so this next purchase would be almost totally for macro shooting. I have read a lot of reviews on my own but none are really personal.

I have been leaning towards the 90mm it just helps to have some reassurance. The high price of the 105mm makes it seem like i would be getting a product so superior to the tamron that it should be an easy decision. It's not easy though and I have yet to hear anything that truly justifies the price jump. I don't know if it makes a difference but I use a d5000.

D5000 makes no difference unless you are buying used...there are used Tamron 90mm f2.8's that won't autofocus on the D5k but if you buy new it will no problem.

You may already have a decent potrait lens, but it will be nice to be shooting macros and then see some portrait photo opps present themselves with family and friends and have the perfect lens mounted to swivel and get the incredibly sharp shots. Depending on what portrait lens you have, the Tamron 90mm might be better for that use...it is dubbed the "portrait macro" lens and works great as a double duty lens. I definitely do not think you would not be happy with the Tamron 90mm...it is a flat out excellent lens and one of the sharpest lenses you can buy period...from any manufacturer.