Paulie Loc: NW IL

This is a beginner's question so I would like to ask for your patience. :-)

know, I know...

One is macro, one isn't
One is Nikon, one isn't
One has zoom one doesn't
One costs more than the other
One is bigger than the other

It will probably be nearly impossible to find a person who owns and uses both of these and hear from them, but I would really like to hear expert's opinion on the real world image quality produced by these two lenses.
Are they totally different or at least close? Is one much sharper than the other? Aberration? Color? Am I comparing some things that don't belong into same basket?

The reason why I am asking this question is because I'm in search of a good wide aperture lens in that range for variety of use on D5500.
Not studio or portrait work, but probably some sports, some wildlife, some low light conditions and who knows what else...

From what I have read and heard both of these have fast AF and great overall performance.
I am leaning more towards the zoom option, but I was told not to go there if I simply want to take stunning photos.
I have no problem with sacrificing the reach for more happiness with final results.

Black Friday sales are coming soon and if I get a chance to save over $200 on new lens purchase like I did last year, I might buy one of these two, but which one do I really want and why?

Has anyone here use both of these lenses and has first hand experience with them?

If all ths makes sense to anyone, please let me know.

Thanks
Paulie

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I do not have either one.

Overall, I would expect IQ to be very much equal - but also - depending on the subject distance, the exact f-stop, and focal length setting !

The macro is more corrected for closer up work ( say, under 6 feet ) and for stopping down the lens. With both lenses at 105mm and f2.8 at 10 feet, I would expect equal IQ's ......

Paulie Loc: NW IL

Thank you.
I know nothing about macro lenses so this helps little bit

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

Paulie,

I have the Nikon 105 Micro Nikor and love it.Super sharp and consider get the non AF. For macro you need manual focus.Any questions PM me.

Paulie Loc: NW IL

Thank you!

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Nikon -
https://www.google.com/search?q=images+from+Nikon+105mm+f2.8&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS716US717&oq=images+from+Nikon+105mm+f2.8&aqs=chrome..69i57.4039j1j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Tamron -
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS716US717&ei=MkP8WcSvEofSmwHm2YOwDg&q=images+from++Tamron+70-200+G2&oq=images+from++Tamron+70-200+G2&gs_l=psy-ab.3...39933.39933.0.41361.1.1.0.0.0.0.119.119.0j1.1.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.OIGDelm520s

Paulie Loc: NW IL

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

The 105 is a little short for many sports shooting situations on a full frame camera but might be usable on your crop sensor. You will have some challenges using it for sport though I think. The 70-200 might be better for sports depending on how close you can get and whether indoors or outdoor sports. If outdoors 200 is not very long for like soccer or football and even baseball sometimes.

I also don't consider a f/2.8 to be super fast for a prime lens. It is for a 70-200 but for a medium prime I would rather be in the f/1.8 or f/2 range. Especially if shooting indoors without any flash. I am not a Nikon shooter so I don't know the high ISO capability of your camera but indoors without flash higher ISO is often needed to get a fast enough shutter speed to stop action. I shot a lot of volleyball on a 1.3 crop sensor camera with an 85mm f/1.8 lens. It was about 110mm lens equivalent field of view. I sat in the first 3 rows courtside to shoot volleyball. I could shot players both near side and far side of the court with that setup. And the 85 focused very fast too.

Best,
Todd Ferguson

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Let me say in the first place that I have experience with the Nikon lens but none with the Tamron 70-200 f2.8. I have seen pictures made with the Tamron lens and they looked good to me but that could not be enough.
The Nikon lens is a superb portrait and macro lens and I am quite sure that its performance as a medium tele is also spectacular. I can say that of mine. The zoom is a more versatile lens because you have several focal lengths at your disposal. If your interest is in general photography then the zoom should be an important consideration and from what I know the new Tamron lens is excellent optically.
As you can see choosing could be tough at times.

Don W-37 Loc: Bangkok, Thailand

I have the 105 and it is a great lens. But, unless you do a lot macro, it would have limited utility. The Tamron 70 - 200 G2 has great reviews and would be more versatile. I have a Tamron 150 - 600 and I am quite happy with it. I also use a Tamron 16 - 300 on my D7100. It, too, has been a good travel lense. On my D750 I use either a 24 - 120 or a 28 - 300 for travel. So I would recommend the Tanron zoom because I think it would be more useful, especially for sports and if you travel. Good luck!

Paulie Loc: NW IL

Thank you for your valuable input.
I was in the 4th row at a hockey game and shot most of the action in front of the net somewhere around 130-160mm on 1.5 crop body so in that particular situation 105 fixed would be fine, but it was only that one time. I was teady to use my 150-600, but our seats were little too close for that and I'd still be somewhere around f6 which would require ISO over 3200 - way too high for D5500. From my previous experiences the thing I miss most in some situations is "reach", but maybe tighter crop is fine with a super sharp lens. That's just a lack of experience on my end. This new lens will be pretty much for general use to fill in the gap between my shorter focal lenghts (11-16, 18-55kit) and 15-600. Well not exactly. There is also Tamron 18-270 I bought for traveling and hiking, but it's not what I was hoping for it to be. IQ is just not there compared to my other lenses and low light capabilities are non existing. Also my 18-55 kit lens isn't feeling very good after 3600 mile motorcycle trip...

Paulie Loc: NW IL

Thank you!
You're 100% right - It is tough. t

Paulie Loc: NW IL

Thank you, that's kind of what I'm thinking.
If 105 is a lot better in IQ than walking a few steps forward or backwards wouldn't be that much of an issue, especially with the focus breathing issue stealing some reach from true 200mm, but if these two lenses are producing similar results then 70-200 seems like more logical choice. I'm open to sugestions and advice and that always opens a lot of questions...