NMR Loc: Edmonton, Canada

My experience with a side by side comparison of the two lenses was just the opposite.

Maybe I had a bad copy of the Nikon, but I found the CA issues to be much worse on the Nikon than the Tokina.

Overall, my findings in real world usage over a number of subjects demonstrated to me that the Tokina is an optically superior lens. And that is why it remains in our camera bag.

I continue to not experience any of the negative issues listed - no horrid CAs, definitely no green cast, no distortion problems.

The 'gotcha' with the Tokina is the extension of the lens barrel while focusing, which can necessitate a repositioning of the camera / tripod. Other than that, I think it's a superior unit.

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

Any lens can exhibit CA.... If it does, stop it down further to eliminate it or correct for it in post...I'm attaching an image I took a few days ago (download & enlarge to see the flies eye facets)... Mind you, this was with a manual focus macro lens from the mid 80's....Just as good as anything on the market today.... BTW, all of my macro's are hand held & most are in the F11-F32 aperture settings as I use a ring/point light in order to get those apertures for the most DOF... As for using a tripod, I only use them for static subjects... Trying to set up a tripod to capture a moving insect is a experience in futility. Not that it can't be done, but it results in way less "keepers"

Green Bottle Fly on Daisy Fleabane

(Download)

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

if the nikon is worse than this .4 meg crop of a 35 meg tokina file i'm glad i chose the tokina.

(Download)

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

CA normally rears it's ugly head when you have areas of high contrast in an image & the different bands of light don't get focused on the same plane.... All you ever wanted to know about CA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

The 105 can go as high a F59. This is very important for DOF which is critical for macro work. I did not see this in the DOX labs specification. I have no idea where Tonika specs are. Another item not listed on the DXO labs site is VR. Though some one said if you are shooting macro you always are on a tripod, I would disagree. In the field where I do most of my macro work, I am often on my kness or belly to get the shot. Furthermore, by the time you set up the tripod, the insect would be gone, moved, or just taken off.

Another important feature that Nikon has with its professional series is weather proofing. The 105 is weather proofed. I don't think you will be unhappy with the Nikon but you might question your decision if you entrust Tonika.

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

The tokina bottoms out at an effective f stop of 64 (f22 on the ring) but anything smaller than f45 begins to show diffraction softening even though the DOF is still improving.

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

How many people shoot in rain ? I've used an older manual focus lens for decades (no weather sealing) & it works just fine.... The importance of weather sealing is inconsequential

jlrivera Loc: Round Lake, Illinois

"I think that the longer focal length means you can get a 1:1 image further away from your subject."
That's true :thumbup: :thumbup:

4ellen4 Loc: GTA--Ontario

I would go with Nikon since it has better glass than Tokina. I get a really good monthly photo mag and it has a lot of tests that are done. Nikon glass has an excellent test results--and it is the better glass that you want.
A lens may not have certain options that you think would be a lot better for you and that may be. But for a better image it is the glass that counts in every situation

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

what is the test they perform that proves nikon glass is better than tokina glass or fuji glass?

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

I'm waiting for the answer to that as well...

traveler90712 Loc: Lake Worth, Fl.

I don't know what mag 4ellen4 is speaking about, but I use Camera Lens Ratings by DxOMark.

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Ratings

They do explain their testing.

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

As I have repeatedly said, take those bench test scores with a grain of salt...Without printing large or pixel peeping most people are not going to be able to discern differences between shots taken with different lenses in real world shooting (if they even could then)... Considering that most people only display their images online or thru small prints makes any differences even less noticeable. Another point to mention is that the "scores" are given at certain apertures (& focal lengths for zooms)... No mention is made of scores at other apertures or focal lengths (not to even mention subject distances, which also affect quality)

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

please don't bother with lens tests - they're useless. firstly, go with a 105mm focal length. this allows you to work a little farther away from your subject matter. secondly, the at-x line of tokina uses the element formulations of the legendary french maker angenieoux (sp!). they are great lenses which is why tokina bought the company. so, either the at-x or the nikon 105mm lenses will make you equally happy. also, macro work is very technical and the discerning user mostly focuses manually, as the eye is more accurate than any af device. so, pick the lens which as better manual focusing capabilities. and good luck with your image making!

gthopkins Loc: Stratford, CT

Hi, do you use both Tokina lenses on tripod only? I am interested in the Tokina 100mm F/2.8 macro lens and the Nikon 105mm f/2.8 VR micro lense. I do plan to use whichever lens I get for more than just macro/micro photography like portraits. I mostly shoot w/a Nikon 18-300mm 3.5-6.3. It's not pro glass like the Nikon 18-300 mm 3.5-5.6, however, I make a lot of people really happy just the same.

I am concerned that my ego may be directing more towards the Nikon 105mm micro. I have used the Tokina and the macro shots while using a tripod were great. I did not find the lens useful for anything else. The Nikon 105mm micro I tried in a local camera shop. It took really nice macro shots done in the store environment with a flash or tripod. It also took some great portrait shots and is some great glass with a very high price tag for someone who shoots more for fun than for money.

It makes me think I should stick with what I have and leave macro for those that can afford a single purpose specialty lens or those who earn enough to justify the business expense of the Nikkor 105mm micro lens.

For the time being, I'm just doing some research which hasn't cost me anything, so far.