A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > Nikon > Macro Setup > Nikon 105mm Macro vs Tamron...

Featured Equipment Deals

The September Monthly Project Read More

The September Monthly Project

For September's monthly project, Tom Persinger is joining us again to examine the intriguing ways reflections can be photographed to add interesting additional layers to our images. Please add your...

Latest Equipment Articles

10 Stocking Stuffers under $50 Read More

10 Stocking Stuffers under $50

We've searched high and low to put together this list of 10 small photo-related gifts that any photography lover would be delighted to receive. No matter your budget, these are also fun to give (or...

Latest Learning Articles

State of the ART: The Little Lens That Could Read More

State of the ART: The Little Lens That Could

Fine art photographer Pete Myers talks about his love for the Cosina Voigtländer CV ULTRON 40mm SLii, a lens he considers to be "The Little Lens That Could."


Nikon 105mm Macro vs Tamron 90mm Macro(Category:Nikon)

Carolyn Hodges , Jan 26, 2007; 07:21 p.m.

Does anyone have any comparison shots between these 2 lens on a Nikon digital camera? Most of the reviews I read seemed to lean towards the Tamron for sharpness and better brokeh. And, comments are welcome regarding these 2 as a portrait lens (non-pro)

Carolyn

Responses


    1   |   2     Next    Last

Thorir Vidar , Jan 26, 2007; 07:50 p.m.

i suppose it was a typo, but what a nice twist on the "b" word. not that i know anything about either of the lenses..

Erik Loza , Jan 26, 2007; 08:51 p.m.

When properly used, I'm sure that either would meet all your expectations. The "digital" part doesn't really matter.

Ian Cox-Leigh , Jan 26, 2007; 08:57 p.m.

Read this review of the Nikon 105 and then read the bit at the bottom. I think it will go a long way to answering all your questions.

http://www.bythom.com/105AFSlens.htm

Arnab Pratim Das , Jan 26, 2007; 09:10 p.m.

I'm a big fan of the Tamron 90 for many years. You don't need a hood with this lens and if used solely for macro, you don't need to use AF much, either.

Mark O'Brien , Jan 26, 2007; 10:03 p.m.

I have used the manual focus Tamron 90mm for years -- it remains one of my favorite lenses. I suspect that the AF version is even better in many respects. Either lens will give outstanding results and I doubt anyone could distinguish photos made by either one from each other. Get the lens that you can afford. The 90mm will crop to 135 on a DSLR, whereas the 105 will be about 160. That might make more of a difference.

Janet W , Jan 26, 2007; 10:31 p.m.

The Tamron is just a spectacular lens. Its color rendition, sharpness, and bokeh is just terrific. You will never regret getting it.

-Janet


Echinacea, taken with Tamron 90mm

Carolyn Hodges , Jan 27, 2007; 09:00 a.m.

Janet - thank you for your image - it's beautiful. Ian - I did read that article but thank you for posting. I'm wondering why there is such a significant price difference besides the VR? Carolyn

JDM von Weinberg , Jan 28, 2007; 11:27 p.m.

I know nothing about the Nikon 105, but for what it's worth, I love my Tamron. If the VR isn't going to work at Macro distances, then save the money and go for the 90 mm Tamron

Antonius Lecuona , Jan 30, 2007; 07:59 a.m.

I have the old Tamron SP90 and it is very sharp, however. There are 2 disadvantages to this lens. The one is the irritating focusing ring which slides into AF too easily (Maybe the new SP90 solved this problem) and secondly the front element of the lens moves forward as you focus.

I'm not sure if the Nikon will be able to calculate the distance to subject and then match the exposure (and flash) more accurately. So you might get better exposed subjects with the Nikon than with any other lens.

Antonius


    1   |   2     Next    Last

Back to top

Notify me of Responses