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)
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.
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 - 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
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
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.