Tamron SP 90mm Macro -- Di vs. non-Di ?

Harvey, I have the Tamron 90mm (non Di) and it is a great lens. It's great compared to any lens. In my opinion, the Di is sales hype. I've had a Tamron Di lens and couldn't tell any difference on a D70 or D50. Buy one used and you'll get a great deal.

By the way, I have a few Tamron 90 shots in my portfolio that can view by clicking my name.

It's great compared to any lens.

Would you elaborate on that?

Elaborating on the Tamron being "great," I believe it to be as sharp or sharper than any of the many Nikon lens I've owned, including the much lauded: 35mm 2.0 AFD, 35-70 2.8 AF, 50mm 1.8 and 1.4 AFD, 85mm 1.8 AFD, 80-200mm 2.8, 70-200mm 2.8 VR, or 180mm 2.8 AFD.

Examining www.photodo.com, I find the Tamron to be ranked higher than any Tamron lens and ranked higher than all Nikons except the 50mm 1.8. Moving over to the lens performance survey at www.photozone.de, I see that users rank it very highly as well.

In using the word "any," I sought to explain that the Tamron 90mm is a great lens when compared to third party lenses AND Nikons, not just among third party lenses.

All macro lenses are exceptionally sharp, but two stand out to me: the MicroNikkor 200mm F4 AFD and the Tamron 90mm SP. These two have something special. The color, contrast, and bokeh are consistently the best I've seen. I'd like the Tamron to be metal (not for toughness but for inertia), but it handles extremely well. I have the Di and I prefer its focus ring to the older models. Optically they are the same. I had the Sigma and it is great, but I like the Tamron's bokeh above f5.6 much better. The new Tokina looks very good to me (on par with the Tamron, but with more metal...again...for mass, not toughness). It is unproven at this time, so I think the Tamron is a sure thing. I don't shoot digital, so my preference for the Di has nothing to do with performance. I am led to understand the the improved coatings are important for digital capture. I have no experience to comment on whether this is true. Good luck with your decision...you can't get a bad macro lens : )

Just talking about MF, my 90 tamron was absolutely better than my sample of 105/2.8 micro, better than 55/2.8 too. It was not just sharpness, but there was some clarity, vividness, sense of air. A great, great lens.

My Tamron 90mm non-DI is also flawless. It spoiled me :) The best lens that I have.

The "ready for digital" hype has been so abused it's created an understandable air of skepticism among veteran photographers. One running gripe is that you're paying more for less - a smaller image circle.

But there may be some validity to the Di, DG, etc., designation on lenses. According to the lens makers they've improved the coatings on rear lens elements to minimize problems with flare caused by light reflected off the sensor. This type of flare may not be visible as ghosting but rather as a veiling type of flare, lowering contrast.

I don't own any Tamron or Sigma lenses and have test driven only a couple of Tokinas. But the Nikon DX lenses appear to be contrastier on my D2H than some of my AI and AI-S Nikkors and older AF Nikkors. This may be due to improved rear element coatings.

When I recently test drove the Tokina 12-24/4 I tried my best to produce flare. While perhaps not quite up to Nikkor standards it was certainly more flare resistant than my older-tech wide angle primes.

I have the non-Di and I get terrific results. I cannot see how the Di version could be any better.

Thank you to everyone for your replies, suggestions, and comments. I'm going to go for it!