Reading mode: Light Dark

Nikon 60 2.8 Vs Tamron 90 2.8

Go to last post
L

leungtao

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
303
Reaction score
0
Location
Walnut Creek, US
I need to buy a nice macro medium priced lens. I had tried the Nikon 60 and found the focus is so so. How about the Tamrom 90? The Tamron 90 costs more then that of the Nikon 60. I like to see some photos from the Tamron 90. Thanks.
 
I ended up selling my Tamron 90mm because it was just soft everywhere.. I had a bad copy, and I tried 4 other copies, same thing. Both lenses are wicked sharp when you get a good copy.

90mm doubles as a portrait lens, and has superior bokeh. the 60mm Micro has harsh bokeh, and not as good for portrait work; but a group of 5~6 hikers here in Taiwan take ONE lens on their hiking trips, the 60mm Micro, they say it works for scenery as well as flowers all in one..

If you get a good copy, can't go wrong with either...

+ Tamron
Working distance
Bokeh
Sharp
Great portrait distance

-Tamron
Lens E X T E N D S!! (and it's F5.6 at 1:1)
a bit more plasticy

+ Nikkor
Sharp!
Doubles a as a normal lens on a 35mm
Light
Lens very very deep in the barrel

-Nikkor
Harsh Bokeh

My subjective analysis..
 
I don't know about Tamron 90 but I have a nikon 60 and I like it toomuch.
it is unbelievable sharp.
f stop is 3.3 at 1:1 magnification which is quite good.
to take insects photo you should be patient because 1:1 distance is 20 cm's.
built quality is very good.

the only problem with this lens is I don't remove it from my camera because my 18-70 and 28-200 look soft compare to it.
 
I had the 60 mm Nikon and sold it and got the Tamron 90, which I like a lot better. The extra focal length gives me more working room with small subjects, and the Tamron also makes a great portrait lens. It also works with the Tamron SP TCs, which gives you a medium telephoto without carring an additional lens.
Mine is tack-sharp, and I am very happy with it.
Hope this helps.
--
Cullen
 
Both are excellent macro lenses, its a matter of wich focal length you think will suit you best.

Here are a few shots from the nikkor 60mm/2,8 Micro
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=14450995

Here are a few from the tamron.







As i said both are great. The tamron has a more pleasing bokeh, while the Nikkor has an edge when it comes to sharpness. (imo)

Kindest
--
Regards
Paul L.
 
I own both and find the Tamron a great performer since its early introduction, I've been using it since my Pentax days. I use the 60mm for table top and the 90m for insects and when I want/need to keep my distance. Can't go wrong with either the 60 or 90mm...So so fucus?? It has no AFS and for the application they both were designed, Manual Focus is usually required.

Micro 60mm







Tamron SP 90mm:





 
I've owned both. I had the Nikon first and sold it for the Tamron. Both are great lenses but, for me, it wasn't much of a contest. I enjoyed the Tamron much more. Both lenses are razor sharp but the bokeh of the Tamron is in a completely different class than the Nikon. I don't have too many photos from either on my pbase but here's a few.

Tamron











Nikon





--
-Mike
http://www.pbase.com/ghostrider25

'You can't keep blaming yourself. Just blame yourself once, and move on.'
 
with current rebates the tamron can be picked up for less than $400 just about anywhere,,,under $350 at some places, so price shouldn't be an issue.

i'm a Nikon snob but went for the tammy and glad i did...do a search, there's a gazzilion sample photos out there,,the lens is kinda legendary, tamrons claim to fame, no doubt.

here's a recent sample using the Kenko pro 1.4 t/c



and one without



the lens rocks...good luck with whatever u go with, ..i suspect there's no such thing asa bad macro lens ....;-))
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nute/
 
Albert said:
the 60mm Micro has harsh bokeh
Click to expand...
To a certain extent this is true. It's bokeh can be very ugly, can also be beautiful; so unpredictable. It's only after a year's practice that I have some feel about under what conditions that the bokeh is not going to be pretty.

If there a way that images can be posted here without joining Flickr, Pbase or the like?

--
'It is good photos, not expensive gears that earn respect.'
 


--

'A man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on.'
Winston Churchill
 
Exif available with Opanda or similar program.
--

'A man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on.'
Winston Churchill
 
I have not used the Tamron 90, it was the lense I wanted to buy but a got the 60mm Nikon used for a good price. This is the non-D version. It is now the lense that stays on my camera most of the time. Very nice lense.















 
Forgot to add, that the focusing is not bad at normal focusing distances but you should use manual at close(macro) distances.
 
Albert said:
I ended up selling my Tamron 90mm because it was just soft
everywhere.. I had a bad copy, and I tried 4 other copies, same
thing. Both lenses are wicked sharp when you get a good copy.
Click to expand...
thanks for sharing. I though I would be the only one who had bad luck with the Tamron 90Di. As yours my copy was soft everywere, far distance and close up. In intermediate close up distance (50cm-100cm) I compared it with a 1.8/50mm and my 17-55DX. The Tamron came out last, and I shipped it back.

I guess, Tamron has some sample variation problems lately. To bad for such an alleged superb lens.

Frithjof
 
that is too bad ...my boy and myself got perfect copies the same week...no doubt samples to vary ...;-)
FrithjofA said:
Albert said:
I ended up selling my Tamron 90mm because it was just soft
everywhere.. I had a bad copy, and I tried 4 other copies, same
thing. Both lenses are wicked sharp when you get a good copy.
Click to expand...
thanks for sharing. I though I would be the only one who had bad
luck with the Tamron 90Di. As yours my copy was soft everywere, far
distance and close up. In intermediate close up distance
(50cm-100cm) I compared it with a 1.8/50mm and my 17-55DX. The
Tamron came out last, and I shipped it back.

I guess, Tamron has some sample variation problems lately. To bad
for such an alleged superb lens.

Frithjof
Click to expand...
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nute/
 
Since2007 said:
It's bokeh can be very ugly, can also be beautiful; so unpredictable. It's only after a year's practice that I have some feel about under what conditions that the bokeh is not going to be pretty.
Click to expand...
Since2007 said:
If there a way that images can be posted here without joining Flickr, Pbase or the like?
Click to expand...
This should be sufficient to prove my point, photo #10309, #10086 and #1873, folder Zygo Cactus. This is what the 60mm Micro is capable of.

http://aus4ever.spaces.live.com/photos/

--
'It is good photos, not expensive gears that earn respect.'
 
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