nw

I am looking to buy a macro for my Nikon D600. Which is better, Nikon AF-s VR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED (2160) or Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Di VC USD 1:1 AF (AFF004N)

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

The quality of the Nikons images FAR exceeds the Tamrons.

bertnie

Tokina 100-2.8 is a winner...see KenRockwell's opinion of this lens...I have the Tokina and the Nikon105...they are both excellent!
Bert

hikercheryl Loc: Madison, NC

I have the Nikon 105 macro and it is a good lens. I haven't tried any other macro.

ecobin Loc: Paoli, PA

The Nikon 105mm VR macro is the sharpest lens I own. I use it for portraits and macro.

Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA

I have the Nikon 105 and it gets my vote but you must also know that I've had no personal experience with the Tamron.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

The UHH True Macro-Photography Forum at http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-102-1.html has scores of macro-photographer members, but just a few who use the Tamron 90-mm macro lens. Drop by, and ask your questions directly to active macro-photographers.

lourens Loc: Pretoria, South Africa

It all depends on how much you want to use it and how involved you will get with Macro. At a third of the price of the Nikon, the Tamron would give you almost exactly the same picture quality apart from some marginal differences in the corners of the images. http://www.flickr.com/photos/csaveanu/2739044725/
If you plan on getting heavily involved - most Macro enthusiasts will all recommend the Nikkor for things such as fast Autofocus and possibly being a more robust lens and not least for carrying the Nikkor Label. For the odd bug and flower at irregular intervals, no lens on the market will beat the Tamron for value for money. So what is your involvement like? And then - the lens is only one small part of Macro - it takes a LOT of experience to take really great macro - probably one of the most tricky types of photography to do well. And thus your real investment would be time and interest more than just dollars :-)

Manglesphoto Loc: 70 miles south of St.Louis

You may also consider the Nikkor 200mm f4 macro

Festus Loc: North Dakota

Nikon 105.

RichieC Loc: Adirondacks

I have the 105... it cost dear, I am happy I spent it, I spend way more then that on a car that rusts to nothing in about 8 years. I figure I'll never have to replace it again- as it is the among the very best made by anyone... it continues to make smile every time I zoom in to a detail or marvel at the Brokeh. It is plain fun. This all adds up to a good return on investment-- a good value.

Heck.. it will retain its value! Want to know how good a lens is, look at used prices. They are set to what people are willing to spend on them... tells you a lot in itself.

200 is a great lens too, but using it for a portrait lens would mean standing across the room bigger then required for the already rather long distance requirements for the 105. However, giving insects and whatever "room" to not feel crowded, it may be superior for that use and as a telephoto.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

I have 6 different macro lenses (including a Nikkor) & you will find that when you ask such a question, you will get a myriad of answers, all recommending whichever macro lens it is that they have... Optically, they will all deliver excellent results & you would be hard pressed to be able to discern what lens has taken an image if you could at all as the differences, where present, are small. Good macro shots are more a result of good techniques than the lens used.The Nikkors will have the best resale value & in most cases the best build quality. More important is what focal length to get & the best consensus is in the 90-105mm range as you are looking at. They offer a good balance between the shorter focal length lenses, which put you so very close to your subject & that likely will frighten off many skittish subjects, & the longer lengths, which become increasingly more expensive & heavy...I'm one of the ones in the "True Macro Forum" & I shoot Nikon. What camera you shoot with can make a difference too. Your D600 will accept the older manual focus macro lenses & still allow you to meter in "A" or "M" modes. I use a mid 80-s manual focus macro lens on a D300 & on a D7100. I used to use it on a D70s, but had to manually meter with that setup, where as now I don't. Auto focus & Vibration reduction become increasingly ineffective as you get closer to life size. Most macro shooters, myself included, do not use AF at all when shooting macro. Unless you intend to use the lens for a lot of non-macro images, save yourself some money for other macro items by buying on the used market (KEH is a great resource)

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

See what DxO says.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/261/(brand)/Nikkor/(camera1)/0/(lens2)/488/(brand2)/Tamron/(camera2)/0

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Bench tests & field results are way different... I could take the same image with lenses that scored differently & you could not discern which one was which. While the "results" may seem conclusive, the field result differences would be too small to tell. BTW, I noticed that the DXO tests were not taken using the same cameras...That can skew results as well... That said, consumer satisfaction with a lens is a subjective thing & that has to be considered as well. I'd say they best way for him to decide, is to rent both & judge for himself which one he prefers...

Edmund Dworakowski

I agree... works fine with my D300s and built like a tank !