Macro lenses--Tokina 100mm, Tamron 90mm, Sigma 105mm

I'm decided on which macro lens to get. My main purpose is of course macro, so I suppose the VR isn't a big deal for that. However, I'd also like to use the lens for portrait type shots, other outdoor shots, so for those things VR would be good.

And doing any hand held macro type shots outdoors, it seems like VR would be a bonus as well. I like the Tokina, but that's the one bad thing about it...no VR.

* Tokina 100 mm f/2.8 - but no VR

* Tokina's newest 90mm f/2.8 - has VR & works with tap-in console

* Sigma 105mm f/2.8 has VR

Any recommendations/comments for these three?

The Tamron 90 017 is the newest one and has very good reviews. The Tap in console is a plus to get it dialed in. I think they are all good as macro lenses but for the other uses you named I would go with the Tamron.

Steve

Sigma doesn't have the latest design and usb dock compatibility of the current generation. Optically is on pair with Canon 100/2.8 IS L.

You've picked out some great lenses, and I had to think it through too.

I went with the Tokina, because it's a really sharp lens at a very good price.

There are times that image stabilization would be nice, but not often. Macro lenses don't focus fast, so I find I normally use mine on a tripod.

This is a rough lighting test for some paperwhite blossoms, that I set up yesterday. I'll add the front lighting later, and then do focus stacking.

Thanks for the input. I actually ordered the Tokina and have had it a few days....it seems extremely nice, incredibly sharp, just really beautiful photos. I got to thinking about other lenses again because I'm unsure whether I should keep this particular Tokina lens or exchange it for a replacement....the reason being that when it was delivered to me the outer box was entirely open to the extent that the lens could fall out...there was no packing in the box and my receipt wasn't in there either. The Tokina box itself was in perfect condition and didn't look as it if had ever been opened, but I'm worried the lens box was banged around enough that it may have problems later. As I test it, it seems fine...but I can't help but be worried about its arrival and what might have happened. So at that point I got to thinking about the other lenses....although the more I read about them all, the more it seems that way more people like the Tokina, it has an incredible number of almost totally 5-star reviews. You can't beat that!

Anyhow....what I really got to thinking about was the times I don't have a tripod but I'm trying to shoot macro....using the lens outdoors to zero in on some bug or flower, and thus I would be hand holding the lens...and how would that be with no VR? Have you shot your lens this way with any success?

I was trying to shoot a little ant yesterday and he simply wouldn't stop running around, but I had the camera on AF-C and a very fast SS, and took a bunch of shots that actually weren't half bad, considering that the ant was moving so fast.

Hand holding is a challenge with a macro, but for me, it's not about stabilization, it's the narrow DoF. I can be shooting at, say, 1/250 where I don't need any stabilization, and it's tough to grab the image I want. Now, I have to say that I have a small cheat that helps me, but I don't know if there is an equivalency for Nikons (other than a laser guide ). I use a MagicLantern hack that puts in trap focus, which is tremendously helpful.

If you got a lens that lacks optical faults, do not take that for granted! You can so easily do worse, even with brand new lenses. I don't know if many leave the factory decentered and needing adjustments or it's in the handling, but if I got a good one I would stick with it. Not fool around with returns due to theoretical concerns.

I know the Tamron 90 & Sigma 105 unstabilised. Really I cannot remember enough to differentiate them, generally all macros are excellent though the Nikkor 105mm VR did not have such an unimpeachable reputation for IQ, hence I did not buy it. The Tokina has a good reputation for bokeh and I think if you switch to the Tamron you will note it does not feel as solid.

threw the lens said:

If you got a lens that lacks optical faults, do not take that for granted! You can so easily do worse, even with brand new lenses. I don't know if many leave the factory decentered and needing adjustments or it's in the handling, but if I got a good one I would stick with it. Not fool around with returns due to theoretical concerns.

I know the Tamron 90 & Sigma 105 unstabilised. Really I cannot remember enough to differentiate them, generally all macros are excellent though the Nikkor 105mm VR did not have such an unimpeachable reputation for IQ, hence I did not buy it. The Tokina has a good reputation for bokeh and I think if you switch to the Tamron you will note it does not feel as solid.

Click to expand...

I think you might be right...it seems to be a good copy so I probably shouldn't worry. Also, the Tokina doesn't have an internal focus mechanism, so there might be less to have been damaged in shipping. I'll keep testing it heavily, but so far things are great and images are beautifully sharp, beautiful color and contrast. I like what I see so far.

CMCM said:

....the reason being that when it was delivered to me the outer box was entirely open to the extent that the lens could fall out...there was no packing in the box and my receipt wasn't in there either...

Click to expand...

Let me guess, does the retailer have the letters H and B in it?

CMCM said:

....what I really got to thinking about was the times I don't have a tripod but I'm trying to shoot macro....using the lens outdoors to zero in on some bug or flower, and thus I would be hand holding the lens...and how would that be with no VR? Have you shot your lens this way with any success?

I was trying to shoot a little ant yesterday and he simply wouldn't stop running around, but I had the camera on AF-C and a very fast SS, and took a bunch of shots that actually weren't half bad, considering that the ant was moving so fast.

Click to expand...

Re: Tripod or not, IMO Tripod will give you better results but you would really benefit from bellows or similar with it as it really ties you down if your subject is static, then that helps. I have taken Macro shots with the Zeiss 100mm f/2 macro and Ziess 50mm f/2 macro all handheld with no camera shake so for me lack of VR is not an issue for Macro.

Re AF, I would totally abandon it. You'll get much better results IMO shooting MF. Try going to minimum focus distance and then move the camera in and out until you get what you want in focus. Then try focused farther out/or wherever you want and do the same thing. Act like a robot when moving in and out and keep everything stable and steady. Smaller apertures will help a ton as well as a lot of light. Use live view if possible and focus peaking if your camera body has it.

Re ants, unless u are gluing them down (kidding) probably pre-focus on a spot and wait until they reach that spot to take the shots, then you can try to follow it (with a low percentage of keepers) if you want.

saaber1 said:

CMCM said:

....what I really got to thinking about was the times I don't have a tripod but I'm trying to shoot macro....using the lens outdoors to zero in on some bug or flower, and thus I would be hand holding the lens...and how would that be with no VR? Have you shot your lens this way with any success?

I was trying to shoot a little ant yesterday and he simply wouldn't stop running around, but I had the camera on AF-C and a very fast SS, and took a bunch of shots that actually weren't half bad, considering that the ant was moving so fast.

Click to expand...

Re: Tripod or not, IMO Tripod will give you better results but you would really benefit from bellows or similar with it as it really ties you down if your subject is static, then that helps. I have taken Macro shots with the Zeiss 100mm f/2 macro and Ziess 50mm f/2 macro all handheld with no camera shake so for me lack of VR is not an issue for Macro.

Re AF, I would totally abandon it. You'll get much better results IMO shooting MF. Try going to minimum focus distance and then move the camera in and out until you get what you want in focus. Then try focused farther out/or wherever you want and do the same thing. Act like a robot when moving in and out and keep everything stable and steady. Smaller apertures will help a ton as well as a lot of light. Use live view if possible and focus peaking if your camera body has it.

Re ants, unless u are gluing them down (kidding) probably pre-focus on a spot and wait until they reach that spot to take the shots, then you can try to follow it (with a low percentage of keepers) if you want.

Click to expand...

Good advice about the focus methods. This is all new to me so I'm totally in learning mode. For the ant, I had a 1/800 or perhaps faster SS and was using AF-C and following the little guy all over the place, waiting for a moment when he might pause so I could press the shutter. I initially played with the lens using live view and the focus was going back and forth endlessly and not locking focus. Later I realized I was just too close, and once I moved back a bit it focused fine. I'm thinking in general VR is no big deal. I have and use several of my older lenses that don't have it, so I'm used to shooting without it.

Also....how could you guess who I ordered my lens from?

CMCM said:

saaber1 said:

CMCM said:

....what I really got to thinking about was the times I don't have a tripod but I'm trying to shoot macro....using the lens outdoors to zero in on some bug or flower, and thus I would be hand holding the lens...and how would that be with no VR? Have you shot your lens this way with any success?

I was trying to shoot a little ant yesterday and he simply wouldn't stop running around, but I had the camera on AF-C and a very fast SS, and took a bunch of shots that actually weren't half bad, considering that the ant was moving so fast.

Click to expand...

Re: Tripod or not, IMO Tripod will give you better results but you would really benefit from bellows or similar with it as it really ties you down if your subject is static, then that helps. I have taken Macro shots with the Zeiss 100mm f/2 macro and Ziess 50mm f/2 macro all handheld with no camera shake so for me lack of VR is not an issue for Macro.

Re AF, I would totally abandon it. You'll get much better results IMO shooting MF. Try going to minimum focus distance and then move the camera in and out until you get what you want in focus. Then try focused farther out/or wherever you want and do the same thing. Act like a robot when moving in and out and keep everything stable and steady. Smaller apertures will help a ton as well as a lot of light. Use live view if possible and focus peaking if your camera body has it.

Re ants, unless u are gluing them down (kidding) probably pre-focus on a spot and wait until they reach that spot to take the shots, then you can try to follow it (with a low percentage of keepers) if you want.

Click to expand...

Good advice about the focus methods. This is all new to me so I'm totally in learning mode. For the ant, I had a 1/800 or perhaps faster SS and was using AF-C and following the little guy all over the place, waiting for a moment when he might pause so I could press the shutter. I initially played with the lens using live view and the focus was going back and forth endlessly and not locking focus. Later I realized I was just too close, and once I moved back a bit it focused fine. I'm thinking in general VR is no big deal. I have and use several of my older lenses that don't have it, so I'm used to shooting without it.

Also....how could you guess who I ordered my lens from?

Click to expand...

I don't know why they continue to not protect sensitive equipment like that. Glad that it isn't damaged. I would check for evidence that it was used though, as some retailers are well know for reselling returned items as new and do not sell them as "open box" or return the item to Nikon so just something to watch for.

saaber1 said:

CMCM said:

saaber1 said:

CMCM said:

....what I really got to thinking about was the times I don't have a tripod but I'm trying to shoot macro....using the lens outdoors to zero in on some bug or flower, and thus I would be hand holding the lens...and how would that be with no VR? Have you shot your lens this way with any success?

I was trying to shoot a little ant yesterday and he simply wouldn't stop running around, but I had the camera on AF-C and a very fast SS, and took a bunch of shots that actually weren't half bad, considering that the ant was moving so fast.

Click to expand...

Re: Tripod or not, IMO Tripod will give you better results but you would really benefit from bellows or similar with it as it really ties you down if your subject is static, then that helps. I have taken Macro shots with the Zeiss 100mm f/2 macro and Ziess 50mm f/2 macro all handheld with no camera shake so for me lack of VR is not an issue for Macro.

Re AF, I would totally abandon it. You'll get much better results IMO shooting MF. Try going to minimum focus distance and then move the camera in and out until you get what you want in focus. Then try focused farther out/or wherever you want and do the same thing. Act like a robot when moving in and out and keep everything stable and steady. Smaller apertures will help a ton as well as a lot of light. Use live view if possible and focus peaking if your camera body has it.

Re ants, unless u are gluing them down (kidding) probably pre-focus on a spot and wait until they reach that spot to take the shots, then you can try to follow it (with a low percentage of keepers) if you want.

Click to expand...

Good advice about the focus methods. This is all new to me so I'm totally in learning mode. For the ant, I had a 1/800 or perhaps faster SS and was using AF-C and following the little guy all over the place, waiting for a moment when he might pause so I could press the shutter. I initially played with the lens using live view and the focus was going back and forth endlessly and not locking focus. Later I realized I was just too close, and once I moved back a bit it focused fine. I'm thinking in general VR is no big deal. I have and use several of my older lenses that don't have it, so I'm used to shooting without it.

Also....how could you guess who I ordered my lens from?

Click to expand...

I don't know why they continue to not protect sensitive equipment like that. Glad that it isn't damaged. I would check for evidence that it was used though, as some retailers are well know for reselling returned items as new and do not sell them as "open box" or return the item to Nikon so just something to watch for.

Click to expand...

I don't THINK it was used....the box didn't have the look of being opened before, and everything inside was perfect and intact as far as I could tell. But you never know....I had visions of people in the Fed Ex facility playing catch with the camera box after it fell out or something. I wonder if the similar competing company in NY that begins with "A" packs things better and more reliably? I've never ordered from them...

Regarding AF, the latest Tamron clearly has an edge over the others. Th AF is very fast, not only compared to other macros, but also compared to general lenses. It has become my first choice for close portraits of my little daughter, who is moving quickly and erratically. That was one reason for me to sell rhe tokina for the tamron. the other was very bad CAs but it seems that was due to a bad copy.

The newer Tamron 90 Macro is about as sharp a lens as you will ever find! Take a look at the MTF files wide open. But why take my word for it, do some serious research. I know that MTF files are theoretical for Tamron, but heck!

The new Tamron 90mm is stabilized - since 2016. . . and the sharpest of the three. Yep, and the newer Tamron is built like a brick - solid, very solid!

CMCM said:

threw the lens said:

If you got a lens that lacks optical faults, do not take that for granted! You can so easily do worse, even with brand new lenses. I don't know if many leave the factory decentered and needing adjustments or it's in the handling, but if I got a good one I would stick with it. Not fool around with returns due to theoretical concerns.

I know the Tamron 90 & Sigma 105 unstabilised. Really I cannot remember enough to differentiate them, generally all macros are excellent though the Nikkor 105mm VR did not have such an unimpeachable reputation for IQ, hence I did not buy it. The Tokina has a good reputation for bokeh and I think if you switch to the Tamron you will note it does not feel as solid.

Click to expand...

I think you might be right...it seems to be a good copy so I probably shouldn't worry. Also, the Tokina doesn't have an internal focus mechanism, so there might be less to have been damaged in shipping. I'll keep testing it heavily, but so far things are great and images are beautifully sharp, beautiful color and contrast. I like what I see so far.

Click to expand...

--
Steve Bingham

Have you had the chance to test out the Sigma 70 new or old against the new Tamron 90? Unfortunately the new 70 is not compatible with my Nikon body and Digital Pictures only has the newer one to compare with the 90. The Sigma 70 Art seems to hold its own in the comparison shots I viewed. The 90 clearly has some wonderful features the old 70 lacks such as stabilization.

I own the Tokina 100 and it's a terrific lens. I think most of these are really close to each other. The thing to consider is focal length. I often wish I can get a little further away. The Irix 150mm looks very tempting. Venus Optic (Laowa) also has some interesting and unconventional macro lenses. The 2X macro looks like a lot of fun.

FWIW the IRIX 150mm reviews I have seen have been excellent. My experience with the IRIX 15mm has me very confident in IRIX in terms of build quality, design, and image quality. The image quality of the $375 IRIX 15mm is comparable (and some even say better than) the zeiss 15mm, which is a $3000 lens.

I think of IRIX as a souped up and refined Samyang (IRIX is designed in Switzerland and made by Samyang). The designs are well thought out and IQ is up there with the best lenses there are. I haven't shot the 150mm though, so just passing along what I have heard about it so far. I don't have a use for that lens but it's an intriguing option for someone who shoots macro.

The resolution looks better in a very limited aperture range for the IRIX.

https://www.lenstip.com/556.4-Lens_...2.8_MACRO_1:1_Dragonfly_Image_resolution.html

https://www.lenstip.com/21.4-Lens_r...0_PRO_AF_D_100_mm_f_2.8_Image_resolution.html

The Tokina at least has auto-focus, which is useful for portraiture. And at $600 vs $350 for the Tokina, I'm not confident anyone would tell the difference in a print. But, 150mm does push out the reach a bit, and that is really important for some users and their applications.