Reading mode: Light Dark

Nikon 85 1.8 and Tamron 90 2.8 Macro

Go to last post
C

cmvsm

Veteran Member
Messages
4,688
Reaction score
11
Location
FL, US
I'm debating between these two lenses and can't quite decide. I'm selling my 50 1.8 and would like a decent portrait lens. However, it wouldn't be a bad thing to have some macro capability as well, but I don't want to sacrifice the portrait capabilities to get it.

So the question is, how well does the Tamron 90 2.8 macro perform outside of bug and plant pictures? Is it on par with the Nikon? I've searched the forum but can't find any compelling reasoning one way or the other. The price point is the same with Tamron's rebate that runs through the end of this month.

Thanks!
--
http://cmvsm.smugmug.com
 
Propably great, because macro lenses tend to be very sharp. If you can have them for about the same price, I'd opt for the Tamron, because that gives you macro-ability. I've tried a 85/1.8 once and it's not that great at f/1.8.

I sometimes use my Sigma 105/2.8 macro for portraits and it's also very usable, even though you can read on many sites that is has terrible bokeh because of the odd 8-blade aperture design.
 
cmvsm:
cmvsm said:
I'm debating between these two lenses and can't quite decide. I'm
selling my 50 1.8 and would like a decent portrait lens. However,
it wouldn't be a bad thing to have some macro capability as well,
but I don't want to sacrifice the portrait capabilities to get it.

So the question is, how well does the Tamron 90 2.8 macro perform
outside of bug and plant pictures? Is it on par with the Nikon?
I've searched the forum but can't find any compelling reasoning one
way or the other. The price point is the same with Tamron's rebate
that runs through the end of this month.
Click to expand...
The Tamron is usually said to be on a par with the Nikkor for portraits. As you may have already read, it's regarded as a good double duty lens.

The only negatives of the Tamron are that it is a bit over a stop slower than the Nikkor and is said to be slow focusing. Applications in low light or needing more subject isolation might favor the Nikkor.

msc
 
Both lenses receive full-marks from users here. I don't have the
Tamron but use my 85 f/1.8 a lot. I don't think you can go wrong
with either lens, it just depends upon your real need.

Agree re the extra light-gathering capability of the 85 f/1.8, and
something you could consider is using a close-up filter/lens on the
85. I use Nikon's 5T a lot with the 85 f/1.8 with no IQ reduction.
It is'nt true macro, but gives very nice close-up images. Nikon recently
stopped making its 5T and 6T but they are on ebay and other sites
regularly. There are also other "close-ups" filters.

Good luck in choosing. Do more research here at dp, the search function
came back up yesterday, but there is no bad decision here betw the
two lenses :-)

Keith

some 85mm images :











--

Not a word was spoken, the church bells all were broken . . .
 
I have both lens' and they are both good. In fact one may wonder why I have both. As someone suggested, the 85mm 1.8 isnt great at 1.8. However Its fine at f2 and even better at 2.2 so you really only gain 2/3 of a stop. Both are really sharp but I still find I only use the Tamron for close up still life and food photography. It does have great bokeh but its focus is a bit anoying, sometimes unreliable and most of the time I find myself using it on manual. Its not the kind of lens you can shoot any kind of action with, great for still life or Head shots where you have some time. However I use the 85 for any kind of indoor portrait or fashion work. The other bonus with the 85 is the extra depth wide open. Even at the sharp f2.2 the extra 2/3 of a stop of limited depth of field does make a difference.
--
sieversfoto
lens' in frofile
 
i have both as well and i agree ...the tammy does have a tendency to hunt. i think the tammy is best for it's intened purpose, macro work..and the bokeh is lovely.

i also find it puts out a color cast on skin i find annoying.
..but really, i like everything else about it ...
;-))
sieversfoto said:
I have both lens' and they are both good. In fact one may wonder
why I have both. As someone suggested, the 85mm 1.8 isnt great at
1.8. However Its fine at f2 and even better at 2.2 so you really
only gain 2/3 of a stop. Both are really sharp but I still find I
only use the Tamron for close up still life and food photography.
It does have great bokeh but its focus is a bit anoying, sometimes
unreliable and most of the time I find myself using it on manual.
Its not the kind of lens you can shoot any kind of action with,
great for still life or Head shots where you have some time.
However I use the 85 for any kind of indoor portrait or fashion
work. The other bonus with the 85 is the extra depth wide open.
Even at the sharp f2.2 the extra 2/3 of a stop of limited depth of
field does make a difference.
--
sieversfoto
lens' in frofile
Click to expand...
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nute/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top