augieg27 wrote:
Thank you all for the response.
I'm now using extension tubes for macro.
How much more quality can I get with a dedicated lens?
Can you describe how much "Quality" you are getting with the tubes plus lens you are using at present?
I ask because what you consider as 'quality' others may not and it may be referring to something totally different that what I'm thinking. As an example, I recently read a post where someone described 'quality' as what most would describe as 'DOF'.
I just got the refurbushed Nikon 105 f2.8 vr from their website this week and used it on a commercial job Thursday. The build quality and optical quality is evident. I’m spotting dust, errant manufacturing flaws, zooming in beyond viewing size to catch and ckean-up the little stuff. The longer lens leaves you some distance to work, room to place lights and flags, and gently compresses perspective, more to my taste.
I just got the refurbushed Nikon 105 f2.8 vr from their website this week and used it on a commercial job Thursday. The build quality and optical quality is evident. I’m spotting dust, errant manufacturing flaws, zooming in beyond viewing size to catch and ckean-up the little stuff. The longer lens leaves you some distance to work, room to place lights and flags, and gently compresses perspective, more to my taste.
Why put Ford hubcaps on a Cadillac? Go with the Nikon!
augieg27 wrote:
I'am considering Tamron SF 90.mm 2.8 vs. Nikon 105mm 2.8mm (used)
What would you be your advice?
Should I consider others?
Thank you.
I have the Nikon micro nikkor 105 mm and a Tamron 180 mm. Both produce outstanding, sharp images. The 180 mm gives max image size at greater focus distance, which I prefer for shooting skittish critters. You'd be happy with either, I think. Enjoy! …. and take architect's advice -- it's the only way to find Carnegie Hall... :-)
augieg27 wrote:
I'am considering Tamron SF 90.mm 2.8 vs. Nikon 105mm 2.8mm (used)
What would you be your advice?
Should I consider others?
Thank you.
I don't know about the Tamrom but I do have the Nikon 105 f/2.8' I have used it for a couple of years and found it to be one of the sharpest lens around. I would highly recommend this lens.
augieg27 wrote:
I'am considering Tamron SF 90.mm 2.8 vs. Nikon 105mm 2.8mm (used)
What would you be your advice?
Should I consider others?
Thank you.
I have an early version of that lens I think it is the best lens in my bag. It is a bit long-ish on an APS-C sensor camera, but the flat field 1:1 macro with plenty of working distance is great. It is FABULOUS for portraits, too.
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
augieg27 wrote:
I'am considering Tamron SF 90.mm 2.8 vs. Nikon 105mm 2.8mm (used)
What would you be your advice?
Should I consider others?
Thank you.
The Nikon 105 2.8 has been the standard that all others are compared to. Go with the standard, you will not be disappointed.
You would have to pry my Nikkor 200 Micro from my cold, dead hands!!
augieg27 wrote:
I'am considering Tamron SF 90.mm 2.8 vs. Nikon 105mm 2.8mm (used)
What would you be your advice?
Should I consider others?
Thank you.
I went with the Tamron 90 2.8 (F017 model - SP 2nd gen) based on reviews...love this lens (very sharp, great contrast) ...although when I get some GAS money may try:
* Nikon 60mm f/2 D lens (great used deals from Japan on ebay)
* Tokina 100mm f/2.8
That "thumbs-up" From a man of few words, a man like that should be listened to.....Though , HE'S A MAN OF FEW WORDS< Notice that HE really is a man of Many LETTERS & NUMBERS!!! kmgw9v
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.