I'am considering Tamron SF 90.mm 2.8 vs. Nikon 105mm 2.8mm (used)
What would you be your advice?
Should I consider others?
Thank you.
For what it's worth. I have both a 50mm and a 100mm macro lens. I find that the 100 gives more working room, the 50 gives a better view of things.
augieg27 wrote:
I'am considering Tamron SF 90.mm 2.8 vs. Nikon 105mm 2.8mm (used)
What would you be your advice?
Should I consider others?
Thank you.
both are 2.8. is 90 ok or 105. price difference ? have Nikon camera, why not Nikon lens ? is price a factor ? i'd go with Nikon. thanks for listening to my 2 cents.
Tamron's new SP series prime lenses are great. I have the 45mm f/1.8 SP VC lens. It has vibration compensation, a metal lens barrel, and is fully weather sealed.
If you get the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 SP macro make sure it's the latest F017 model.
I went with the Tamron because its reviews were much more positive. I love it. Good luck with your decision.
augieg27 wrote:
I'am considering Tamron SF 90.mm 2.8 vs. Nikon 105mm 2.8mm (used)
What would you be your advice?
Should I consider others?
Thank you.
Do search, this topic has been discussed before. The overall opinion of knowledgeable photographers is that most macros are good. I am very happy with my 100mm Tokina. Look at reviews of macros. More money does not always equate to better images when it comes to macro. I question wheter anyone viewing pictures could tell an image quality difference between Tamron, Tokina, Sigma, Canon, etc. The difference is likely price. I have Nikon equipment. Not every Nikon lens is outstanding, some are not even close to the competition.
SierraP wrote:
For what it's worth. I have both a 50mm and a 100mm macro lens. I find that the 100 gives more working room, the 50 gives a better view of things.
I have a Tokina 100 and a Tamron 180 macro. The extra distance you get with the 180 is great. The extra weight is not great.
I had both the Sigma and the Nikon 105, decided on the Nikon, not that their was much difference between them but kept the brand. In the old days for Macro work used my IIIf with a visoflex w 35mm lens. Images incredible, I could fill a frame with the date off a quarter and incredibly sharp.
I have the sigma 150. I love it and it allows you to be a little further away from "skittish" subjects. Downside--it's heavy.
I have the Nikon 105G and the Nikon 200. The 105 G is a great lens. I'm not in love with the 200.
Thank you all for the response.
I'm now using extension tubes for macro.
How much more quality can I get with a dedicated lens?
AF 105mm F/2.8 has been working for me for around 20 years. It is manual focus on the Z cameras but AF on all but the entry level dslr's.
--
I see you've been asking about macro lens since july 2017.. Get any 100mm macro lens and start learning. It's Not about the Lens, it's about the properly diffused flash and technique. You have to practice, practice, and practice. Post some of your work in the Macro section here on the Hogg and the macro folk can help you from there.......
augieg27 wrote:
Thank you all for the response.
I'm now using extension tubes for macro.
How much more quality can I get with a dedicated lens?
I have the nikon 105 2.8 and it works great for me
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.