Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Which is better macro lens
Page <prev 2 of 3 next>
Aug 6, 2013 17:53:16   #
Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga
 
Take a look at the "True Macro Forum" & see what images are there & what lenses were used if you want to see real world performance...

Reply
Aug 6, 2013 18:04:08   #
jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY
 
Screamin Scott wrote:
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...
Bench tests & field results are way different.... (show quote)

Right. That's just one piece of information, like snapsort.com.

Reply
Aug 6, 2013 18:05:46   #
jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY
 
RichieC wrote:
I have the 105... it cost dear,

I was fortunate to find a good one on ebay for a good price.

Reply
 
 
Aug 6, 2013 18:48:04   #
pigpen
 
I read a review by a reputable source that claims the Tamron 90mm macro was the best. I own the canon 100mm macro, and find it to be amazing. The reviewer put the Tamron over the Canon, which I find hard to believe. Many people will suggest the Sigma. I guess it's all in who you ask.

Reply
Aug 6, 2013 19:05:14   #
Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga
 
That's why I said in my post that anyone who answers, will recommend whichever lens it is that they have...They are all good lenses, but a lot depends on the technique of the person behind the lens...
pigpen wrote:
I read a review by a reputable source that claims the Tamron 90mm macro was the best. I own the canon 100mm macro, and find it to be amazing. The reviewer put the Tamron over the Canon, which I find hard to believe. Many people will suggest the Sigma. I guess it's all in who you ask.

Reply
Aug 6, 2013 20:16:48   #
MtnMan Loc: ID
 
nw wrote:
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)



The first. Fabulous lens!

Reply
Aug 6, 2013 21:26:36   #
nw
 
Thank you all share the good comments. I will pick up the Nikon 105mm Lens.

Reply
 
 
Aug 6, 2013 21:31:37   #
LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field
 
lourens wrote:
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 :-)
It all depends on how much you want to use it and ... (show quote)


A third of the price? Isn't that a bit of an exaggeration? So you can buy a new Tamron for $300? Where?

Reply
Aug 6, 2013 21:45:38   #
Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga
 
You can get a used Tamron 90mm macro from $225 to 325 at KEH...Used 105 Nikkors Micros are from 300 to 985
LoneRangeFinder wrote:
A third of the price? Isn't that a bit of an exaggeration? So you can buy a new Tamron for $300? Where?

Reply
Aug 6, 2013 22:05:07   #
LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field
 
Screamin Scott wrote:
You can get a used Tamron 90mm macro from $225 to 325 at KEH...Used 105 Nikkors Micros are from 300 to 985


I'm not disputing a wide range in price for used lenses: Nikkors hold their value much better than Tamrons.

However: a new Tamron is $500; a new Nikkor is $900.00

Reply
Aug 6, 2013 22:06:55   #
Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga
 
I realized your point, my post was for the OP, illustrating the fact that they can save quite a bit of money by buying used....
LoneRangeFinder wrote:
I'm not disputing a wide range in price for used lenses: Nikkors hold their value much better than Tamrons.

However: a new Tamron is $500; a new Nikkor is $900.00

Reply
 
 
Aug 6, 2013 22:08:16   #
LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field
 
Screamin Scott wrote:
I realized your point, my post was for the OP, illustrating the fact that they can save quite a bit of money by buying used....


No argument there!

Reply
Aug 6, 2013 22:18:19   #
LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field
 
Screamin Scott wrote:
I realized your point, my post was for the OP, illustrating the fact that they can save quite a bit of money by buying used....


Oh. another point: The new prices I quoted were from B&H and the Nikkor has VR-- while the Tamron doesn't. The non-VR Nikkor is much closer (new) in price to the Tamron. Many times I have mine off-- but Nikonian swears by it. I believe Tamron may be releasing a nikon mount with vibration resistance soon (or maybe they already have?)

Reply
Aug 6, 2013 22:21:04   #
jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY
 
LoneRangeFinder wrote:
Oh. another point: The new prices I quoted were from B&H and the Nikkor has VR-- while the Tamron doesn't. The non-VR Nikkor is much closer (new) in price to the Tamron. Many times I have mine off-- but Nikonian swears by it. I believe Tamron may be releasing a nikon mount with vibration resistance soon (or maybe they already have?)

Most of my macro is on a tripod, so VR is redundant.

Reply
Aug 6, 2013 22:40:00   #
LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field
 
jerryc41 wrote:
Most of my macro is on a tripod, so VR is redundant.


No doubt. I always have it off for tripod pointed Macro-- but for hand-held, many find it useful.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 3 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.