OviedoPhotos

I know its not made anymore, but the Macro lens I swear by is the Nikon 70/180 f/4.5-5.6. Its an awesome lens. I also have a Nikon 105MM and a Nikon 35/70 Macro.

User ID

You mention the 45mm ... the ONLY mention I have
seen in ZILLIONS of geekish gearhead chattering on
this or ANY forum. I have two, in EF and NAF mount.
Ignoring any possible Optical Majesty ... all I wanted
was a normal lens with IS ... and the 45SP seems to
be the only one on the market !

Long story longer .... while I was not intentionally
seeking Optical Majesty, majesty is very evident in
the results. I did NOT buy them as a pair. I wanted
to get only the NAF version, but I was so impressed
by it that I very soon ordered the EF version.

Soooooo ... if the 90mm is equally outstanding, I'd
ignore the "Nikon lens for Nikon body" faith and go
for the Tamron. As to the "NlfNb" faith, the Gods of
Nikon did not even offer me an alternative. Tamron
was the best choice by being the only choice.

---------------------------------------------------

FWIW, unlike Nikon Canon DOES offer *sort of* an
IS normal ... not a 50, but 35 is close enuf by me.
I even prefer 35 over 50 as "normal" but this 45SP
impressed me so much that I also got it for Canon
and bypassed their 35/2 IS. Again, if the whole SP
series is as good as these 45s, go with Tamron :-)

.

chrissybabe Loc: New Zealand

I have a Tamron SP 90mm f.2.8. Lovely lens. However you need to look very carefully at what or how you intend to use it. I wanted to use the lens reversed possibly with extension tubes and/or a bellows unit. The 90mm has NO f stop ring so not too sure just how you use it when the lens is permanently stopped down to f22. So if you just want a standard lens the 90mm is fine but if you want to do anything fancy then maybe the Nikon (I have no personal knowledge of the Nikon) might be a better fit. I didn't want to stuff around with trying to find some method of passing control signals to the Tamron. I wouldn't have bought the Tamron if I had done my homework properly.
You may find that looking at used lens might be a better option.

User ID

Not only is that useless commentary, but it's wrong.

You can most certainly reverse ANY lens onto an EF
mount and maintain normal aperture automation.

I endlessly wonder why so many Online Experts fail
to do even the easiest Online Research :-(

chrissybabe Loc: New Zealand

I had a bellows and several extension tubes between the camera and the Tamron. None of them have any electrical paths between the camera and the lens. So how on earth can the lens stop down from f22 to say f8 when there is nothing to tell it how to do this ?
Oh and there are no wires in the reversing adapter either. And of course with a reversing ring mounted then are also no contacts on the front of the lens either ! This is on a Nikon and I do apologise for not mentioning this. Nikons don't have an EF mount to my knowledge.
Waiting to hear how this is done........

The lens is really a great lens if used as a 1:1 macro and is the only thing on the camera.

User ID

`

Electronically coupled lens reversing kits are
only offered for Canon EF. No Nikon version.

Prolly cuz all EF lenses are functionally alike
since 1987, but Nikon has produced several
functionally different editions of their mount
over the same time. Selling to Canon users
is simple. Nikon users would give up in utter
confusion and very few would actually buy if
they had to deal with compatibility issues of
numerous versions of lens reversing kits. So
no kits get designed.

.

chrissybabe Loc: New Zealand

I guess I didn't even need to mention that my Tamron use was with a Nikon since one of the lens the OP was asking about was a Nikon.

But I should have mentioned that after paying for the Tamron lens I didn't want to add more purchases to it to make it actually work.
I guess the reverse adapter is great for Canon users who wish to do this and I really wish there was some way of making it work on a Nikon for less than $100.

My use failed anyway because I wished to have it open for several hours at a time but it failed because of a heat related issue.
I do have a really good Tamron 90mm f/1.8 lens for the few times I want to photograph bumble bees.

TBPJr Loc: South Carolina

It depends on how you want your pictures to look. A good macro generally has a better than average whole-frame quality (i.e., little to no distortion or other obvious optical flaws), but also a shallow depth of field; your pictures of living things or of almost any three-dimensional object will have a plane that is in focus and most of the picture will be soft (at best) and sometimes downright fuzzy. The shorter the focal length, the closer you have to get to your subject--harder to do with skittish creatures, but not an issue with inanimate objects. When I bought macro lenses, I bought a 100mm f/2.8L for what I understood was the high quality; I also bought the 50mm f/2.5 because it was relatively inexpensive and might be of use on a crop-frame camera. Now, unless I am trying to capture a document, photograph, or something else flat, I prefer to use a telephoto zoom that has a close focus capability. The depth of field is at least as good as a macro, and sometimes much better (I like to get the whole subject in acceptable focus, if possible); I can stay farther away from a subject with a telephoto than with a macro and still fill up the frame with the subject, which is a real advantage with wildlife. To me, a close-focusing telephoto zoom lens is much more flexible; when I was carrying my camera in hopes of spotting a hawk I had seen recently, I had mounted a telephoto zoom with an 1.4 extender, so when I saw a dragonfly perched on a bare twig, I was able to get some interesting pictures (I was almost at minimum focusing distance and the dragonfly was in the shade--my depth of field was less than I hoped, but I had planned for a distant shot of a bird). It finally flew away when I got greedy and tried to get a very little closer and to where the angle was what I wanted to try. The wingspan in the nearly face-on pictures covered almost half of the frame.

The better macro lenses are heavy and large, but not so heavy and large as the telephoto zooms--that can be a factor to consider, too.

So, consider what lenses you already have and what might work, or whether a close-focusing telephoto lens might be a more useful purchase--what you want to take should be the primary guide.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

There have been five or six different Tamron SP 90mm macro lenses. Which one are you looking at?

- The newest one is full 1:1 capable, internal focusing, autofocus with faster USD focus drive and VC image stabilization.
- There is also currently available another full 1:1 capable, autofocus version... less expensive (about $500) but it's not internal focusing, uses slower micro motor focus drive and doesn't have image stabilization. I think this model is discontinued, but still can be found new.
- There were one or two more autofocus models previously.
- There were also two or three manual focus versions... two were f/2.5 and 1:2 (extension tube used to make full 1:1), another was f/2.8 and full 1:1 on it's own. All these were "Adaptall" lenses... an interchangable mount system that allows them to be easily adapted for use on practically any 35mm or DSLR camera system. There are even Adaptall mounts available for some mirrorless cameras.

Overall the Tamron SP 90mm lenses have always had a very high reputation. They also currently make a more compact, "crop only" (Di II, they call it), SP 60mm which is one of only a few macro with an f/2 aperture. They also have made several SP 180mm macro lenses over the years.

Nikon's 105mm Micro-Nikkors also enjoy a reputation for very high quality. And there have been a bunch of different versions of them, too, beginning with a legendary manual focus version introduced in 1984 (and still in production) and several different AF versions. The current model is the AF-S 105mm f/2.8 VR with image stabilization and a fast ultrasonic focus drive motor built in, which will autofocus on all current Nikon DSLRs (and Z-series, with an adapter). It was preceded by an AF 105mm Micro lens (1990-2007) which doesn't have a built in focus motor, relies on a motor built into the camera.... for that reason it can autofocus only on D7000-series and higher current DSLR models. It would be manual focus only on D3000/D5000-series cameras.

There also is a comparatively inexpensive Tokina AT-X Pro 100mm f/2.8 Macro lens you might want to consider. It's able to do full 1:1 too and has high image quality and a good build. However, it's not internal focusing, doesn't have image stabilization and, like the earlier AF 105mm Micro, doesn't have an in-lens focusing motor, so is only able to autofocus on the higher end DLSR bodies. It also uses a rather unique "focus clutch" mechanism to shift autofocus on and off.... I've recently heard of a few Tokina lenses where that mechanism failed, though I've had a Tokina with it that's worked fine for at least 112 or 15 years and never had one fail on me. One thing about it, due to the focus clutch mechanism, there's no "full time override" of autofocus. This means you can "de-focus/re-focus" a lens quickly. You have to first shift the lens to manual focus, then back to autofocus mode after you've de-focused it. OTOH, a lot of macro shooting is easily done with manual focus.... which any of these lenses can do quite well.

Finally, Sigma has a 105mm f/2.8 OS HSD macro lens that's very similar to the Nikkor 105mm. The Sigma has been on sale very significantly discounted lately, too... might be worth a look (when I see such large discounts, I suspect they might have a new version in the works... but the current one has a very good reputation anyway). It's a very full featured lens: full 1:1, internal focusing, image stabilization, fast ultrasonic focus drive. Sigma also has some shorter and longer focal length macro lenses (70, 150 and 180mm currently). I don't know much about them, but most macro lenses on the market today are capable of very high quality, so I'm sure they are competitive.

A 90, 100 or 105mm macro lens is a great choice for use on a DX camera. They also work very well on FX, as a bit more compact option. Great for field work. But sometimes with FX it's nice to have a longer focal length like a 150, 180 or 200mm, to have more working distance from shy subjects or those that sting or bite!

Shorter 50 and 60mm macro lenses can be useful too, but put you very close to subjects when using them at higher magnifications. I use my shorter macro lenses mostly indoors, for small product photography and copy work in studio. They're great for that. It also can be a good choice if you want something more compact. Personally I have the Tamron 60mm "crop only" lens that I often carry with my APS-C cameras... it's relatively small and light, plus it doubles better than most as a portrait lens. But my favorite macro is a 100mm. I get it out when I'm out doing "serious" macro work.

Regarding focus speed... most macro lenses are slower focusing than non-macro lenses, even when the macro lens has a high performance type of focus drive. This is by design... emphasizing precise focusing over speed. But, as mentioned, often it's preferable just to use them manually, anyway.

Regarding image stabilization.... several of the above lenses have it. Frankly, it's of limited help at higher magnifications. A lot of the time it's easier to do macro using a tripod or monopod anyway.

Some of the lenses have other features such as a Focus Limiter. This can help speed up focusing by restricting it to a certain range.

And some of the longer macro lenses are fitted with a tripod mounting collar, which is quite handy to have.

Regarding minimum focus distance (MFD).... A 50 or 60mm macro lens will have an MFD between 6 and 9 inches. A 90, 100, 105mm typically has an MFD around 12 inches. A 150, 180, 200mm will have 16 to 18 inch MFD. However, it's important to note that MFD is measured from the sensor plane of the camera. As a result, part of that space is occupied by the lens, some of the camera body, and anything you mount on the front of the macro lens (filters, hood, flashes).

There are a number of other macro lenses (Zeiss, Rokinon, Laowa, etc.).... most of which are manual focus only. There have been some legendary vintage ones, too.... Vivitar Series 1 105mm, Kiron 105mm, and others... some of which might be found in Nikon F-mount (or adapted from another mount).

throughrhettseyes Loc: Rowlett, TX

I just bought the Tokina 100mm f2.8 macro. It's perfect. Highly rated by Ken Rockwell too.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

What is the reproduction ratio when you reverse-mount the 90mm Tamron? I have a Fujifilm S3 Pro (DX) and 85 f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor G. Reverse-mounted with a BR-2A ring the ratio is about 1:2, which can be attained with the lens mounted normally. So reverse-mounting makes no sense in this case. The S3 Pro was my first DSLR, and I didn't realize until it was too late that it was so poorly designed that it won't meter without a CPU lens. However, the setup is great for ratios up to 1:1, and for greater magnifications I simply reverse-mount shorter focal length lenses (with aperture rings) on it (lens stacking) and still have TTL metering. No need for ridiculous cables between camera and lens.
If you insist on reverse-mounting the Tamron, you might try to find one of these ($100) to control the diaphragm:
https://www.amazon.com/Vizelex-Focusing-Helicoid-Lenses-Clicked/dp/B00K0U7PHG
It would serve as a 44.3-68.6mm hood while protecting the rear of the lens. The circles on the blue aperture ring are probably 1- stop increments, though I have not checked that.
You could also use a Nikon BR-6 ring and control the diaphragm with the lever or a cable release, but you'd have no reference to gauge the actual f/stop.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Internal Focusing (IF) lenses start out bigger than non-IF (the latter can be considerably more compact when focused to infinity, for storage).

IF lenses also change focal length when focused closer. The Canon 100mm USM that I use is more like a 70mm at full 1:1. Not that you notice this in the field.

And, the CURRENT Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 VC USD does not extend. It is Internal Focusing too. (The more compact, crop-only Tamron SP 60mm f/2 is also IF.)

The previous version of Tamron SP 90mm (not VC or USD) is not IF. (This version can still be found new, too)

The CURRENT Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM is also IF and does not extend. Previous version (not "OS") might have been non-IF.... I don't know.

I can't find a review that compares the Tammy and Siggy with the Micro-Nikkor 105.... but this shows the two earlier version, third party non-IF lenses next to the Canon 100mm IF lens:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-105mm-f-2.8-EX-DG-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

Notice that when they are at full 1:1 magnification, the non-IF and IF lenses are almost identical in length.

This review of the CURRENT Sigma 105mm OS version shows it alongside the two Canon 100mm and the current Nikkor 105mm VR (all four of which are IF):

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-105mm-f-2.8-EX-DG-OS-HSM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

In this last review, there's no illustration view of those four lenses shown at closest focus, simply because there's no difference. All are IF, none of them extend.

User ID

Just keep the Tamron for the use it's designed for ...
IOW properly attached to the body ... and if you really
get into higher ratio macro with reversed optics, just
go the obvious ... and very AFFORDABLE ... route. Old
prime lenses glut the market at chump change prices.

For the money it's no hardship to dedicate an old lens
to strictly reverse-on-bellows duty. Any modest speed
50 with an unpopular lens mount [Konica, etc] will be
dirt cheap. You're not using the lens mount, so it's no
problem how obscure it may be, especially if it keeps
the price of it near zero ;-)

And now, back to your homework !

=============================

As to any disappointment about the impracticality of
reversing the Tamron 90 ... by what science did you
come to believe that was a good idea anywho. I'd bet
it was the "collective received wisdom" of the Online
Experts ... such as abound hereabouts.

Think on this: The Tamron is modern 1:1 macro lens.
You can safely assume it has internally shifting lens
elements that accomplish "Close Range Correction"
[thaz official Nikon jargon, aka CRC]. If you reverse
mount the lens, you defy the designed-in corrections
of the CRC system. Reverse mounting is necessary
for ordinary, unit focusing, conservatively designed,
general purpose lenses when we apply those lenses
to the abnormal usage of having the subject-to-lens
distance shorter than the sensor-to-lens distance ...
which is the reverse of general use, and thus calls
for reversing ordinary lenses. "Tit-for-tat" simple :-)

If "A Little Knowledge is a Dangerous Thing", forums
full of Online Experts are PREMIER showcases of that.
Enjoy your lens ... in its intended application !

And only take hardware advice by users who actually
USE the hardware in question. OK ? I USE a Tamron
90 SP, in Maxxum/Sony-A mount ... so it CANNOT be
reverse mounted. To get "more magnification" [sic]
than the built-in 1:1, I just swap the FF body for an
APS-C body. Same 24MP, plus a 1.5X crop factor :-)

After all, "1:1" is a just a conversational fiction, ever
since we switched from film to digital sensors. I love
to mention that, cuz it brings out all those indignant
Online Experts with their geeky arguments ! And as
this is a macro lens thread, I know they're reading it.

.

chrissybabe Loc: New Zealand

What happened to me was I had a need, also had a GAS attack, plus needed a 1:1 for some general use.
Was basically thwarted by sensor heating closing the shutter way before I wanted it to. If it wasn't for the last two items I would have (or was that should) taken your approach.
I did look for something like that but not much around then and GAS sneaked up and I was done.

Still haven't solved my original problem but am looking at another approach which, I hope, will be much more successful and doesn't involve a conventional camera.

User ID

`

Have you considered the multi-exposure-sequencing-on-same-frame
solution to sensor overheating ? Basically similar to the "Timed Thaw"
setting on your microwave oven .... breaks the job down into smaller,
repeated multiple doses of energy. Thaws deep-frozen foods without
heating them up to cooking temperatures. IOW, you break your long
exposure down into repeated multiple doses of energy without letting
the sensor "heat up to cooking temperatures" :-)

.