Nikon 85 f1.8 or Tamron 90 Di

Bill Wallace · Mar 17, 2006

Is there a logical need for both of these, if I were to do only one I would do the Tamron, it would be my macro lens as I like a longer reach for my macro work than the 60 would give me. I think from what I've seen it does as good of job as its more expensive Nikon cousin the 105 f2.8. I would use the 85 for longer reach low-light stuff, would it also do macros as well as the Tamron?? and no I can't afford the 85 f1.4. There definitely seems a redundant theme here but I made the same mistake asking about the 50 and 60mm Nikon's...or am I all wet on this one...

Any suggestions before I ring up B&H???? Also has anyone used Kenko extension tubes with the Tamron???

Thanks,

Bill

--
Bill Wallace
dpreview & pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/papa51

Windancer · Mar 17, 2006

Bill Wallace said:
Is there a logical need for both of these,

If money is an issue, then probably not. What other lenses do you own? Do you have anything in that focal range? We kinda need to know what you have as that will also come in to play.

In the past I have also owned the 90/2.5 MF Tamron and it was a heck of a lens, but I sold it because at the time I had the Nikkor 55/2.8 AF and 105/2.8 micros along with my Nikkor85/1.8 AF, so for me it was redundant. I wish at times I still had it but that's just lens lusting.

Bill Wallace said:
if I were to do only one it would be my macro lens as I like a longer
reach for my macro work than the 60 would give me.

Is that Tamron a digital lens only?

Regards
Terry
--
Graham Fine Art Photography
http://grahter.sasktelwebsite.net
http://www.reginaphotoclub.com/MemberGallery/TGraham
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrairiePhoto/

Lonely Raven · Mar 17, 2006

Different tools for different needs. You wouldn't hammer a nail with a screwdriver...

That said, the 90 Tamron is no slouch for portrait as well as it's a great macro. But no amount of knob turning is going to make it an f1.8.

The 85mm has a minimum focus distance of something like 24" and doesn't do 1:1. It is NOT a macro. Just not made for it. You could try a nice expensive close-up diopter like the Nikon T6, but it wouldn't render MACRO images as nicely as the Tamron.

I'd go by what you're probably going to need more.

Macro + Portrait = Tamron
or
Low-Light + Portrait = 85mm

Eventually you'll want to have both a macro and a low light lens (hammer and screwdriver) in your bag, but for now figure out what you NEED and pick that lens.

Bill Wallace said:
Is there a logical need for both of these, if I were to do only one
I would do the Tamron, it would be my macro lens as I like a longer
reach for my macro work than the 60 would give me. I think from
what I've seen it does as good of job as its more expensive Nikon
cousin the 105 f2.8. I would use the 85 for longer reach low-light
stuff, would it also do macros as well as the Tamron?? and no I
can't afford the 85 f1.4. There definitely seems a redundant theme
here but I made the same mistake asking about the 50 and 60mm
Nikon's...or am I all wet on this one...

Any suggestions before I ring up B&H???? Also has anyone used Kenko
extension tubes with the Tamron???

Thanks,

Bill

--
Bill Wallace
dpreview & pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/papa51

--
The Lonely Raven

Jack of all Trades,
Master of None

Bill Wallace · Mar 17, 2006

On the same order I am getting the 35 f2 and the 50f1.8 so I thought that both the macro and the 85 were too similar and as it turns out they are not really. When I came to Nikon from Olympus I wanted to do some low light stuff hence my thinking behind my choice of primes. $$$ are an issue as this will tap out my available funds so I want to be as sure as possible. The Tamron is a Di so I guess it's a digi-only.

Right now I have the 18-70 kit (which I am happy with except towards the wide end and I will probably add the 12-24 and keep the kit for a while), the 70-200 vr and the 300 afs f4 and the 14e tc. I shoot a lot of landscapes, birds and flowers, the latter I'm going to get more serious about this year. As I mentioned I want to do more low-light and wanted to give primes ago. I shoot with a D200 and still have my E-1 kit which will probably go this summer.

Thanks,

Bill

--
Bill Wallace
dpreview & pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/papa51

Bill Wallace · Mar 17, 2006

See my post above for my present equipment. I guess my question is "is there enough of a difference when it comes to low light to justify the 85 f1.8 & the Tamron f2.8". Will the f1.8 allow me to shoot in a much darker venue that the 2.8? I have no experience with lenses this fast....but I do need a macro and want something longer than the 60mm.

I figured the Tamron would save me some $$ over the cost of the 105 f2.8 and there seems to be nothing but good things said about the Tamron. I figured it out as you equated, but the 5mm and f1.8 v f2.8, I wasn't sure how big the difference would be, if the extra stop (??) is going to be benefical enough to justify both....or should I just try and pound that square peg into that round hole....

Thanks,

Bill

--
Bill Wallace
dpreview & pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/papa51

gmosc · Mar 17, 2006

Bill,

from 2.8 to 1.8 you are talking a little more than double (or halving) of the shutter speeds.

So for example, if your Tamron need a shutter speed of 1/20th second to get the exposure right, then the f1.8 lens would only need 1/40th if you think in rough terms, but the real number is closer to 1/50th second.
Do you think that would make enough difference in your hand holding ability?

Tough decision. good luck.
Guy Moscoso

TurboFC3S · Mar 17, 2006

You seem a bit misguided in your thinking, no offense.

First off, using ANY macro for general low-light duty is going to be an excercise in futility. Especially if you target is moving at all. Macros just focus too slow to use on anything other than near stationary targets ... and good light is very much prefered, because if they hunt at all, you could be talking about 20-30 seconds to gain a focus lock. By that time you've likely given up, or ground your teeth flat with frustration.

Also if you want a macro with more working distance than the Nikon 60mm, the Tamron is not it. You might gain an inch for 1:1 reproduction, that's it. Although it does give a bit more for less than 1:1 reproductions. If you really want more working distance, the Sigma 105 gives a touch more ... but you might want to look at the Sigma 150 or Sigma/Tamron 180 macros.
--
Ryan Scott - Motorsports Photographer
Why I shoot --> http://www.rxtuner.com

Windancer · Mar 17, 2006

Bill Wallace said:
On the same order I am getting the 35 f2 and the 50f1.8

Good choices there.....;-)

Bill Wallace said:
so I thought that both the macro and the 85 were too similar and as it
turns out they are not really.

they are and they aren't in my opinion. Yes they are similiar focal lengths and if you use them as short telephoto lenses or portrait lenses then they are similiar lenses. If you need a macro lens, then they are totally different lenses.

Bill Wallace said:
wanted to do some low light stuff hence my thinking behind my
choice of primes.

There is a difference between 1.8 and 2.8 when light levels drop so that is something to consider.

Bill Wallace said:
$$$ are an issue as this will tap out my available funds so I want to
be as sure as possible.

Rarely is money not an issue so I hear you. This is really a tough call. Both are very good lenses.

Bill Wallace said:
The Tamron is a Di so I guess it's a digi-only.

Do you have any film Nikons? and if so, can you afford to have lens dedicated to your D70 only?

I guess if I had to get off the fence and make a decision, I may lean towards the Tamron, because I love macro stuff. I'm going for coffee right now, by the time I get back my mind may change....lol.

Let's put it this way, you won't loose with either choice.

Regards
Terry

--
Graham Fine Art Photography
http://grahter.sasktelwebsite.net
http://www.reginaphotoclub.com/MemberGallery/TGraham
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrairiePhoto/

TurboFC3S · Mar 17, 2006

Bill Wallace said:
Bill Wallace wrote:
The Tamron is a Di so I guess it's a digi-only.

Oh, and Di doesn't mean digital only ... it means "optimized for digital", like the Sigma DG for digital lens coatings. The Tamron Di II lenses are APS-C sized sensor only lenses, Di produces a 35mm image circle.

--
Ryan Scott - Motorsports Photographer
Why I shoot --> http://www.rxtuner.com

Bill Wallace · Mar 17, 2006

--
Bill Wallace
dpreview & pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/papa51

Bill Wallace · Mar 17, 2006

--
Bill Wallace
dpreview & pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/papa51

Bill Wallace · Mar 17, 2006

I was never real good about how far a stop was and as I get older (I'm no youngster now) I get shakier so I need all the help I can get...I can't even think about the 105vr...

Thanks for your help, this is proving tougher than I thought and that's why I came to all of you...

Bill
--
Bill Wallace
dpreview & pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/papa51

Bill Wallace · Mar 17, 2006

No I'm not going to be using this lens for moving subjects I have others for that..it would be a portrait/low-light/MACRO lens with the emphasis on macro. I hadn't looked at the prices of the 2 you mentioned but $$$ are a concern hence the Tamron over the Nikon 105 f2.8. (I prefer to stay as much Nikon oriented as possible)

I guess if I have to I can still use my Oly gear for my macro stuff, I have the 50mm f2 macro and I also use the 50-200 f2.8-3.5 zoom on many occasions for my flower work it gives great working distance, but I did want to sell off my Oly gear this summer.

I don't believe I'm totally misguided, it's just trying to make the $$ work for ME.

Thanks for your help and I'll look into the 2 lenses you mentioned as I was hoping to get a couple of suggestions.

Thanks,

Bill

--
Bill Wallace
dpreview & pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/papa51

Windancer · Mar 17, 2006

TurboFC3S said:
Macros just focus too slow to use on anything other than near
stationary targets ...

To a point I guess....I have 3 Nikkor Micros, 55/2.8 AF, 60/2.8 AF and the 105/2.8 and yes they aren't the fastest focussing but they aren't bad. You have to make sure the limit switch is activated if it has one.

Going back to your original post you mentioned shooting, birds and flowers as something you wanted to get more in to. Well as Ryan mentioned the macros won't be spectacular for the birding, but flower photography will be nice. Here's an example or two.

I guess only you will be able to decide which is most important to you, as I said earlier, you can't really go wrong with either lens. Good Luck, let us know what you decide.

Regards
Terry
--
Graham Fine Art Photography
http://grahter.sasktelwebsite.net
http://www.reginaphotoclub.com/MemberGallery/TGraham
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrairiePhoto/

Bill Wallace · Mar 17, 2006

I do have the 300 afs f4 and the 14e tc so I'm okay with my bird end of things. I never intended to use the macro to shoot birds.....

I checked out your galleries Terry, nice work, I didn't see any exif and my reader found none so I wasn't sure what was shot with what...very well done.

Thanks for your input...

Bill

--
Bill Wallace
dpreview & pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/papa51

Windancer · Mar 17, 2006

Bill Wallace said:
I do have the 300 afs f4 and the 14e tc so I'm okay with my bird
end of things. I never intended to use the macro to shoot birds.....

Oh okay, I understand. I also have the 300/4 AFS, great lens.

Bill Wallace said:
I checked out your galleries Terry, nice work, I didn't see any
exif and my reader found none so I wasn't sure what was shot with
what...very well done.

Thank you very much for your comments. I really have to update both of those sites as I have lots of new work.

Did you go to:
http://www.reginaphotoclub.com/MemberGallery/TGraham
a lot more photos there.

Yeah I guess I stripped off most of the EXIF info, I should leave that as a lot of people are interested in that....lol. All the flower and macro shots would be the Nikkor 105/2.8, and the windsurfing shots would be my Nikkor 180/2.8 probably one of my most favourite lenses that I own (have 22 of them)

Bill Wallace said:
Thanks for your input...

You're welcome it was an interesting dialogue.

Regards
Terry
--
Graham Fine Art Photography
http://grahter.sasktelwebsite.net
http://www.reginaphotoclub.com/MemberGallery/TGraham
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrairiePhoto/

TurboFC3S · Mar 17, 2006

I hope I can help ...

I guess I misunderstood, sorry bout that. About the point, what kind of macro work are you looking to do? I have the Sigma 150 macro, but think I might add the Nikon 60mm macro at some point. The 150 is great in that it does give you that working distance, but it's also harder to hand-hold ... and thus harder to get deep DOF when hand-held. Also I think the shorter macros are better for things like flowers.

Honestly I'm probably not the right person to advise about which macro lens is right for your work, since I don't do that much. I plan to do a lot more this Spring though, now that things are starting to bloom.

Have you considered something like the zoom macros that can reproduce up to 1:2? If you don't need 1:1, that might be a good option. Even the new Sigma 17-70 does a decent macro and is cheap ... as is the Nikon 28-105. I find myself doing most work with the macro at something smaller than 1:1.
--
Ryan Scott - Motorsports Photographer
Why I shoot --> http://www.rxtuner.com

Bill Wallace · Mar 17, 2006

I probably do more flower close-up work than true macro...as I mentioned, I used my Oly -50-200 (= 100-400 zoom) for a lot of close ups with my other kit. Have a look @ my galleries if want to see what I shoot....Most of my close-up stuff is shot off a tripod as I'm not the steadiest...perhaps the 60mm if it can be handheld...sheesh I don't know...

I do have the 70-200vr so perhaps with Kenko tubes I can use that or my 300 afs, Ronnie G. I can't remember how to spell his last name, does amazing work with his 300 and the Kenko's.

Thanks for all your advise, it is appreciated....

Bill
--
Bill Wallace
dpreview & pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/papa51

Bill Wallace · Mar 17, 2006

Don't tell me 22 of them, I'm just a working stiff carrying a lunch pail, argghhh. I only went to the one site I'll check the other.

Yes the 300 is very nice, I shot some Trumpeter Swans last week with it and it is sweet, fast focus and very sure. It was overcast, I bumped the iso to 640 (probably too high) but it worked great.

When I came to Nikon I wanted to take advantage of shooting primes, I am a big zoom proponent, but I was limited on the Oly side. I don't want one of each but would like a nice range...as I mentioned to Ryan perhaps with Kenko's and I could use my 70-200 or the 300 as Ronnie G. does.

Thanks with all your advice and help (handholding), it is much appreciated,

Bill

If you find time perhaps check out my stuff if your bored...
--
Bill Wallace
dpreview & pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/papa51

nunatak · Mar 17, 2006

Bill Wallace said:
Is there a logical need for both of these,

the 85mm f1.8 is popular for it's portrait capabilities
the 90mm f2.5 Tamron is popular for it's macro capabilities

while there's some overlap, they both really excell at different purposes. for example, another lens in this range, the 85mm f2.8 PC, would be a separate acquisition for yet still another purpose. overlapping focal lengths don't get at the other values a lens has to offer. if i might suggest don't worry about the focal lengths so much as what you can do with them.

hope this helps.

the born 2 design
design guy

Nikon 85 f1.8 or Tamron 90 Di

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts