Macro Tokina vs Nikon (Page 2): The Nikon 105G f/2.8 Macro is an outstanding lens and can be beneficial in portrait as well. It works very well on a D7100. Good luck.

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

The Nikon 105G f/2.8 Macro is an outstanding lens and can be beneficial in portrait as well. It works very well on a D7100. Good luck.

Brandmic wrote:

I'm looking to purchasing a Macro lens in near fut... (show quote)

Brandmic Loc: Alabama

After much research on 3-4 sites plus here, I went to amazon where the Tokina received 4.7 / 5 stars from 87 reviews. Some had the Nikon 105mm and returned it for the Tokina. Most said it was one of the sharpest lens they owned and they had some expensive lens. So my conclusion is to go with it. At 1/2 the price of Nikon. I am big on Nikon lens but not when they are charging double for less quality. It's FX and AF works on my d7100.

RVDigitalBoy Loc: Clermont, Florida

Brandmic wrote:

After much research on 3-4 sites plus here, I went to amazon where the Tokina received 4.7 / 5 stars from 87 reviews. Some had the Nikon 105mm and returned it for the Tokina. Most said it was one of the sharpest lens they owned and they had some expensive lens. So my conclusion is to go with it. At 1/2 the price of Nikon. I am big on Nikon lens but not when they are charging double for less quality. It's FX and AF works on my d7100.

I, for one, would be interested in seeing your results with the Tokina.

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

Brandmic wrote:

... Most said it was one of the sharpest lens they owned... 1/2 the price of Nikon. ... It's FX and AF works on my d7100.

i use the 100 tokina on both 7100 and full frame. It performs very well and you will probably never notice the distortion and chromatic deficiencies.

Brandmic Loc: Alabama

Deficiencies?

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

Brandmic wrote:

Deficiencies?

since the tokina has more CA perhaps we should call it an add-on feature rather than a deficiency.

of coarse that is balanced by the tokina contrast which is even worse than the new nikon 105.

Its a shame nicon compromised the sharpness to get all that other good stuff like transmittance, clarity, haze reduction, low CA and low distortion.

Besides, with the tokina you will always be able to tell your own pictures cause i read on the 'internet' that the tokina adds a green cast to all its shots.

The point i'm trying to make is that in the world of true high quality macro lenses both the tokina and the nikon are very capable introductory level lenses which will easily outperform 99% of the people using them.

Go, buy, you'll love your new lens which ever it may be.

Brandmic Loc: Alabama

What would be a good macro then? I'm just in the looking and researching stage. Any suggestions?

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

Brandmic wrote:

What would be a good macro then? I'm just in the looking and researching stage. Any suggestions?

missed the point, they are both excellent macros.
A used nikor or a new tokina, the price and performance are about the same.

John N Loc: HP14 3QF Stokenchurch, UK

I've just asked something similar on the specific macro forum. Couple of useful links there. I also found this test (U.K.) on the Sigma offering.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-207707-1.html
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/reviews/lenses/129274/1/sigma-105mm-f-2-8-ex-dg-os-hsm-macro-review

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Since you have asked for opinions I will give you mine not expecting you will change your mind based on my comments.
As has been said, the term macro means a 1:1 vision. If that is exactly what you want it is only logical to think that you need a macro lens. I would favor a 105mm lens for its working distance.
I own an old but excellent 105mm f4 Micro Nikkor AIS. I rarely use it. I do most of my "macro" work with my 70-300 VR or using the "macro" function of my 28-105 f3.5-4.5 D.
I also recommend, if you use a VR lens with a tripod, that you disable the VR. You do not need VR for macro photography.
Tokina, Sigma and Tamron make excellent macro lenses. I have heard more from the Sigma and the Tamron than I have heard from Tokina, not saying the Tokina is a bad lens. I like the Tamron lens, it is very sharp and it is also excellent for portraits. It is a 90mm focal length.
I have no experience with the 85mm lens made by Nikon for macro photography.

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

I have a D7100 & a D300... I use an older manual focus 105mm F2.8 macro as my "go to" lens with excellent results. (look at my Flickr stream for examples)...I have 6 different MF & AF macro lenses, so I have choices. That said, any one will give good results. Good images are more a result of good techniques as they are about gear...AF & VR become less effective the closer you get to life size (The literature enclosed with the lenses even emphasize that).... I wear progressive lenses, but remove my glasses to shoot....As for the people referencing review sites, take them with a grain of salt as bench tests are worthless compared to field shooting. You would not be able to discern differences between different makes of lenses, many times even if you pixel peep...As for macro zooms, they are only close focus, not true "flat field" lenses... You won't get images of the facets of a flies eye with them &the corners will not be sharp at all... Decide on what you want to shoot before plunking down your money. Yeah, macro lenses in the 90-105mm focal length range can be used as portrait lenses too, but be prepared to do post processing to soften every blemish they show...The 90-105mm focal lengths are the best compromise when it comes to macro lenses as they allow more working distance between you & your subject (unlike shorter focal lengths) & they aren't heavy, bulky or as expensive as longer focal lengths... Consider buying used to save some money...

rdgreenwood Loc: Kennett Square, Pennsylvania

Brandmic wrote:

I'm looking to purchasing a Macro lens in near fut... (show quote)

Not everyone is, but I'm a Ken Rockwell fan, and he flat out says "save your $$ and go with the Tokina 100 mm. I took his advice and love the Tokina 100mm f/2.8. It doesn't have VR, but most of my macro is done with my camera on a tripod, so VR isn't important to me. The images are tack sharp--I shoot with a D800E--so I'm very happy. And it was less expensive!

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

amehta wrote:

The Nikon 85mm f/1.8G is an excellent lens, but it is not a close-up lens, with a 1:8 reproduction ratio.

Since our goal is to make your decision harder, not easier, you could also look for a used Nikon AF 105mm f/2.8D Micro. Its optical and build quality is as good as or better than the Nikon AF-S 105mm f/2.8G VR, without the VR, autofocus motor, and the manual override of autofocus. It is usually $400-450, and in excellent condition because most macro lenses are babied. :-)

Not sure if VR has any value in a macro lens. I had the 105 f/2.8 without VR and it was stellar.

I regret selling it. What was I thinking?

Erik_H Loc: Denham Springs, Louisiana

Brandmic wrote:

After much research on 3-4 sites plus here, I went to amazon where the Tokina received 4.7 / 5 stars from 87 reviews. Some had the Nikon 105mm and returned it for the Tokina. Most said it was one of the sharpest lens they owned and they had some expensive lens. So my conclusion is to go with it. At 1/2 the price of Nikon. I am big on Nikon lens but not when they are charging double for less quality. It's FX and AF works on my d7100.

I bought the Tokina 100mm F/2.8 on the suggestion from a well respected macro photographer and liked it so much that when I was looking for an ultra wide I went with Tokina for that one as well. They are my only non-Nikkor lenses, very sharp and the build quality is top notch.

amehta Loc: Boston

joer wrote:

Not sure if VR has any value in a macro lens. I had the 105 f/2.8 without VR and it was stellar.

I regret selling it. What was I thinking?

I sold mine to my dad, but only because I got the 200mm f/4. Maybe that's what you were subconsciously planning? :-)