# Nikon 105 f2.8 VR vs. Tamron 90 f2.8 Di



## edouble (Sep 14, 2010)

I am looking for a very good macro/portrait lens. I have narrowed it down the these two lenses. Which lens from these two do you think is better overall.


----------



## IgsEMT (Sep 14, 2010)

I have Nikon 28-105 3.5-4.5 Macro lens. Its a 10y/o model but results are *great*. You can probably get it now for under $300.


----------



## edouble (Sep 15, 2010)

Thanks IgsEMT. Does anybody else have advice on these two lenses?


----------



## IgsEMT (Sep 15, 2010)

Also look into Nikon 24-85. Its another older model lens that is a cheaper alternative to 24-70.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 15, 2010)

Probably about equal in terms of quality...the Tamron 90 has been refined over three decades and is one of the best-performing of the mid-length macro lenses. I have an earlier version on the Tamron 90, and think it is better than my Canon 100mm f/2.8 EF USM Macro--the Tamron has a much more-rounded aperture than the Canon, and the bokeh rendering from the Tammy is smoother and better-defocused...it looks very,very good in terms of how it renders OOF point light sources, as well as the way it slides out of the focused zone in to defocus--the transitional zones are beautifully rendered with the Tamron, so the pictures have a nice "look" to them, which is different from say the RAZOR-sharp look the Zeiss Makro-Planar 100mm renders...

The new Nikon 105VR has that "new Nikkor" family look. I am speaking of the "look" the newest G-series Nikkor primes have. Very rich, saturated color, and extreme sharpness, an almost 3-D look. At times, it seems like overkill to me, but maybe that's because I'm just not yet used to the way the newer 105VR and 60 Micro~Nikkor render their images. If you want a lens that will hold most of its value over time, the Nikkor would be a better choice. The Tamron 90 is not a slouch, but it does lose value, so buying a used copy might make more sense than buying a brand new one.


----------



## ajkramer87 (Sep 15, 2010)

IgsEMT said:


> I have Nikon 28-105 3.5-4.5 Macro lens. Its a 10y/o model but results are *great*. You can probably get it now for under $300.


 
This is not a true macro lens. 
[SIZE=+2]*Maximum Reproduction Ratio*[/SIZE]
1:5.2, normal mode at 105mm and 1.7 feet (0.5m).
1:2 in macro mode at 105mm.
1:2.74 in macro mode at 50mm. 

Any reason your not looking into the sigma 105? I have it and its a great lens.​


----------



## D-B-J (Sep 15, 2010)

I wanted to get the 105mm micro VR but i could not justify the cost. So i settled with the nikon 105mm 2.8D, and i got an AMAZING lens. Great great lens, sharper than you could ever need.


----------



## edouble (Sep 15, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Probably about equal in terms of quality...the Tamron 90 has been refined over three decades and is one of the best-performing of the mid-length macro lenses. I have an earlier version on the Tamron 90, and think it is better than my Canon 100mm f/2.8 EF USM Macro--the Tamron has a much more-rounded aperture than the Canon, and the bokeh rendering from the Tammy is smoother and better-defocused...it looks very,very good in terms of how it renders OOF point light sources, as well as the way it slides out of the focused zone in to defocus--the transitional zones are beautifully rendered with the Tamron, so the pictures have a nice "look" to them, which is different from say the RAZOR-sharp look the Zeiss Makro-Planar 100mm renders...
> 
> The new Nikon 105VR has that "new Nikkor" family look. I am speaking of the "look" the newest G-series Nikkor primes have. Very rich, saturated color, and extreme sharpness, an almost 3-D look. At times, it seems like overkill to me, but maybe that's because I'm just not yet used to the way the newer 105VR and 60 Micro~Nikkor render their images. If you want a lens that will hold most of its value over time, the Nikkor would be a better choice. The Tamron 90 is not a slouch, but it does lose value, so buying a used copy might make more sense than buying a brand new one.



Thank you for your post Derrel. That was exactly the type of feedback I was looking for. I have heard that the Nikkor 105VR lens extends to focus which actually makes focusing a close subject difficult. Do you have any feedback on this? Manual focus only for macro?



D-B-J said:


> I wanted to get the 105mm micro VR but i could not justify the cost. So i settled with the nikon 105mm 2.8D, and i got an AMAZING lens. Great great lens, sharper than you could ever need.



Good insight D-B-J.


----------



## edouble (Sep 15, 2010)

ajkramer87 said:


> IgsEMT said:
> 
> 
> > I have Nikon 28-105 3.5-4.5 Macro lens. Its a 10y/o model but results are *great*. You can probably get it now for under $300.
> ...



I have never owned a Sigma lens. I have "generally" heard more negative comments about Sigma than positive. For this price bracket I have not considered Sigma. Although, I am considering a Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 EX DG APO HSM ($3000) as a future purchase for motorsports photography which I do a lot of. In that price bracket, $3000, the Sigma looks competitive.


----------



## MrLogic (Sep 15, 2010)

edouble said:


> I have heard that the Nikkor 105VR lens extends to focus which actually makes focusing a close subject difficult. Do you have any feedback on this? Manual focus only for macro?



You heard wrong - it's the other way around. The Nikon 105 VR has internal focusing, while the Tamron does not.

I have a 105 VR.... and AF still works for 1:1 close-up shots, but it can hunt.


----------



## edouble (Sep 16, 2010)

MrLogic said:


> edouble said:
> 
> 
> > I have heard that the Nikkor 105VR lens extends to focus which actually  makes focusing a close subject difficult. Do you have any feedback on  this? Manual focus only for macro?
> ...



Uh oh , thanks for clearing this up, that is what the IF stands for.....

Does your 105VR have qualities that Derrel explained, "Very rich, saturated color, and extreme sharpness, an almost 3-D look."?


----------



## MrLogic (Sep 16, 2010)

edouble said:


> Does your 105VR have qualities that Derrel explained, "Very rich, saturated color, and extreme sharpness, an almost 3-D look."?



Yeah... pretty much. The high contrast of the 105 VR translates into a high perceived sharpness. But it's not the sharpest Nikkor out there, IMO.


----------



## Dao (Sep 16, 2010)

I also read that the 90mm Tamron is pretty good.  And optically, it is as good as or even slightly better than some of the lenses that cost a lot more.

As far as AF goes, it really depends on what you are planning to shoot.  I have a old Canon 100mm macro lens and the AF is slow (when compared with the USM type Canon lens).  However, most of the time when I shoot insect photos with it, I flip the switch to manual focus.  Especially for 1:1 ratio type shots.
For hand held shots, I just use my hands to move the camera back and fro to nail the focus.  So fast AF is nice to have, but not necessary for me most of the time.


But since you mentioned that you like to use the lens as a macro AND PORTRAIT lens, faster AF and VR will help for sure!


----------



## edouble (Sep 16, 2010)

MrLogic said:


> edouble said:
> 
> 
> > Does your 105VR have qualities that Derrel explained, "Very rich, saturated color, and extreme sharpness, an almost 3-D look."?
> ...



Thank you again for sharing your input. Hopefully I can dig up some sample pictures that were taken with this lens that are not pp'd to death.




Dao said:


> I also read that the 90mm Tamron is pretty good.  And optically, it is as good as or even slightly better than some of the lenses that cost a lot more.
> 
> As far as AF goes, it really depends on what you are planning to shoot.  I have a old Canon 100mm macro lens and the AF is slow (when compared with the USM type Canon lens).  However, most of the time when I shoot insect photos with it, I flip the switch to manual focus.  Especially for 1:1 ratio type shots.
> For hand held shots, I just use my hands to move the camera back and fro to nail the focus.  So fast AF is nice to have, but not necessary for me most of the time.
> ...



No doubt. Portrait photography is half the reason why I am looking at this particular lens.


----------



## djacobox372 (Sep 17, 2010)

Personally I would have saved a bunch of $$ and bought a 105mm ais macro manual focus lens--either the f4 or f2.8 version.

You don't really need autofocus when doing macro photography.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 17, 2010)

djacobox372 said:


> Personally I would have saved a bunch of $$ and bought a 105mm ais macro manual focus lens--either the f4 or f2.8 version.
> 
> You don't really need autofocus when doing macro photography.



I think a number of people want a macro telephoto to serve double duty as both a field/nature/portrsiture lens AND a close-up and macro lens...unfortunately, most macro lenses do not work all that well for things that lie outside of the macro and close-up focusing ranges...

Hair-trigger focusing ring travel is the main problem when using a macro lens beyond about 3 feet or so...it can be incredibly difficult to ascertain the exact,right focus with a manual focusing macro lens at distances in the 4-40 foot distance zone...so, most people who are not experts are going to want an autofocusing 90,100,105,150, or 180mm macro lens.

ALL of the macro lenses made by Tamron,Tokina,Sigma, and Nikon are quality lenses. ALL of them are capable of first-rate results. Macro lens primes are one of the areas where the aftermarket lens makers do very,very well.


----------



## djacobox372 (Sep 18, 2010)

Derrel said:


> djacobox372 said:
> 
> 
> > Personally I would have saved a bunch of $$ and bought a 105mm ais macro manual focus lens--either the f4 or f2.8 version.
> ...



Very good points.

My advice was based on someone wanting a lens specifically for macro photography.

It should be noted that the price difference between a used nikon ais macro and a new nikon af-s VR macro is nearly $600.  That's pretty significant.


----------



## Christians86 (Sep 25, 2010)

edouble said:


> Thanks IgsEMT. Does anybody else have advice on these two lenses?



I used to have the Tamron version, but sold it as I found the lense to bother me when it extened. If I remember right it also jumped to F4 while doing that. It did a good job, but I never really got satisfied with the build quality and the extending.
I swapped to Nikon afs 60 macro, since I already had another 100 mm macro (but it was manual, and I didn't like that then)


----------



## edouble (Sep 26, 2010)

I decided that the Nikkor 105VR is the way to go, thanks for everyone's input.


----------

