macro lens question

Hey guys, I'm about to purchase my first macro lens. I've been doing a lot of research and I think I've narrowed it down to two lenses. I am between the Nikon 105mm 2.8 vr or the Tamron 90mm 2.8 vc. Which do you refer? I know a lot of people swear by the Nikon 105 but I noticed dxomark and a couple other places rate the tamron slightly better.

You won't go far wrong with either, I wouldn't nit-pick based on DXO mark. That said I'd want the Sigma 105mm f2.8 OS. Sorry to confuse you!

f.y.i. I did own the Nikon 105VR, Tamron 90 (pre-stablisation) and the Sigma 105 (pre OS). I did prefer the Nikon but only because the VR and AFS made it a better choice for general use as well as macro. I eventually chose a Sigma 150mm in preference to all three. The new OS version of the Sigma 105 seems to improve on the older version, not just in having OS. AF is also improved, as well as IQ. I did try the 150mm OS and it was excellent but also rather bulky, hence I'd prefer the 105. I haven't bought it because I now own a Zeiss 100mm f2 makro.

Thanks for the recommendation. Im definitely considering all suggestions. I really liked the looks of the sigma 150mm but its a little bit out of my price range.

I went with the Nikon 105. Slightly more working distance and VR helps a lot when you use it as a telephoto (which I do a lot).

To the OP: There have been many many threads on this subject. I would suggest you do a search. Consensus is that, if you want an offbrand lens, any of the Tamron 90 f2.8 versions (there have been 2 or 3 in recent years) is preferred over its close competitors Sigma 105 f2.8 and Tokina 100 2.8. Some people prefer to spend more on the Nikon. It depends on your lens budget and, I would think, how much you plan to use the lens.

Welcome to DPReview and to this Forum. If you don't take too many of us too seriously, this is a great website.

If you are using it strictly for macro, then you may opt for full manual, as VR and AF work better at longer distances. This opens up for serious savings as good macros in the 90 - 105 range have been made for many years and in many versions. I got a Sigma 105 (non OS) for around £200 second hand. It is a fine lens, and AF on a D600 is fairly quick and accurate - it is a bit prone to flare with front lighting, newer lenses may have better flare protection.

The Tamron 90mm lens has had a fine reputation since the manual Adaptall 2 version, which can be adapted to full frame Nikon.

Jasondm said:

Hey guys, I'm about to purchase my first macro lens. I've been doing a lot of research and I think I've narrowed it down to two lenses. I am between the Nikon 105mm 2.8 vr or the Tamron 90mm 2.8 vc. Which do you refer? I know a lot of people swear by the Nikon 105 but I noticed dxomark and a couple other places rate the tamron slightly better.

Click to expand...

Unless I am mistaken I think DXO bases their ratings on sharpness mainly. As far as I know all macro lenses are sharp and can be compared to each other easily in that regard. You have to base your choice on other variables. I've not used those 2 macros and I don't think you would go wrong with either of them. I'm pretty sure the Nikon has a better construction quality. Color rendition might be more neutral also (that's the experience I've had with Nikon vs Tamron).

I've had the Tokina M35, M100, Tamron 180mm, Lester E Dine 105mm, Nikon 60mm and 200mm macro lenses and they were all very sharp except the Lester. I liked all of them but kept the 2 Nikon's only. Quality of construction (solid build, smooth focus ring, non extending barrel), neutral color rendition and more consistent results are why I kept the Nikon's.