Tamron SP90mm F2.5 macro or nikkor 105?

Discussion in '35mm Cameras and Accessories' started by jfoote, Dec 30, 2010.

  1. jfoote

    jfoote Member

    Messages:
    27
    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Location:
    Raleigh, NC
    Shooter:
    35mm
    I have been pondering these.

    It is a few $ cheaper than the nikkor 105 f/2.5 that I am also pondering.

    Thoughts one way or the other? thanks
     
  2. lxdude

    lxdude Member

    Messages:
    6,907
    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Location:
    Redlands, So
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    If you want the lens for macro, get the Tamron. If not, get the Nikkor. They both are really good optically in their primary applications. The 105 is legendary, and the Tamron is very highly regarded as a macro, though it seems the Kiron is regarded even better.
    Just my 2 cents.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 30, 2010
  3. j-dogg

    j-dogg Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,322
    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2010
    Location:
    Floor-it-duh
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    ^^What he said. If you go the 105 route get the Nikkor PC version, if it's pre-Ai
     
  4. fschifano

    fschifano Member

    Messages:
    3,216
    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Location:
    Valley Strea
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I have the Tamron 90 mm macro lens in the AF version. This is one fantastic lens. I use it mainly for portraits now, but there was a time when I used it for macro work a lot. If the 105 Nikkor is better, I can't see how it would be very much so because the Tamron is that good. Anyway, that's my $.02.
     
  5. lxdude

    lxdude Member

    Messages:
    6,907
    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Location:
    Redlands, So
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Well, the sharpness and rendition of the 105 is legendary. I've heard that people have gotten good results with the 105 on extension tubes, even, to 1:2, anyway. The Tamron is obviously a better macro lens, and macro lenses as a rule still perform well at infinity. If the OP wants to do macro work, or macro and general work, I'd recommend the Tamron. If not, well, as I said, the 105's image quality is legendary.
     
  6. John Koehrer

    John Koehrer Subscriber

    Messages:
    6,463
    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Location:
    Montgomery,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Are you asking about the 105/2.5 or the 105/2.8 Micro-Nikkor?
     
  7. ozphoto

    ozphoto Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,345
    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Location:
    Bangkok, Tha
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I owned the Tamron 90 f2.5 and it was a superb lens!
    1:2 and 1:1 with the extender, my macro shots were pin sharp and it was a decent portrait lens as well.
     
  8. lightdreamer

    lightdreamer Member

    Messages:
    14
    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I also recommend the Tamron. It is nothing but a excellent lens.
    Nothing left for the Nikkor to top it.
    The Tamron has:

    excellent sharpness,
    very good bokeh,
    performs very good up to infinity,
    top mechanical built quality,
    performs well with the adaptall SP 2xTC and so you have a 180 Macro too
    and yes it is usable on almost every camera due to adaptall-2.

    I used it on Leica R, Contax, Minolta SR+AF, Canon EOS and my Sony A900
    35mm DSLR with best results.

    The Kiron 105 Macro is sharper wide open, but its f2.8 not f2.5, stopped
    down I see no difference.

    I own the 52B Model (and various other lenses of this focal length)

    BG lightdreamer
     
  9. CGW

    CGW Member

    Messages:
    2,797
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2010
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    The Nikon 105/4 is no slouch, either--equal to the 105/2.5 and often cheaper.
     
  10. lxdude

    lxdude Member

    Messages:
    6,907
    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Location:
    Redlands, So
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Except for lens speed.
     
  11. lxdude

    lxdude Member

    Messages:
    6,907
    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Location:
    Redlands, So
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Not to take anything away from the Tamron, but have you used the Nikkor 105 2.5? I've never known of a lens that had nothing left to top.
     
  12. CGW

    CGW Member

    Messages:
    2,797
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2010
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 2, 2011
  13. lxdude

    lxdude Member

    Messages:
    6,907
    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Location:
    Redlands, So
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    True. It's not clear if the OP wants to do macro.
    Of course the Micro Nikkor is the lens to use for serious macro. If the OP wants a lens for regular shooting, the 105/2.5 Nikkor is a legendary lens in that focal length which I believe will outperform the Tamron 90/2.5 macro at or near infinity. All I did was point out that there is one way the 105 f/4 is not equal to the 2.5. I would expect the 2.5 to be better than the f/4 at or near infinity, especially at apertures between f4 and f2.5.:wink:
    My earlier posts in this thread make my opinions clear.
     
  14. fschifano

    fschifano Member

    Messages:
    3,216
    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Location:
    Valley Strea
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Of course, th OP never got back to us as to whether macro capability is desired or not. So until we know that we can argue among ourselves all we want to no avail.
     
  15. CGW

    CGW Member

    Messages:
    2,797
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2010
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Maybe. The Nikon 85/1.8(NAI or AF) or the E series 100/2.8 are as good. Interesting that Nikon never carried the 105mm focal length forward except for the macro and pricey f2.
     
  16. lxdude

    lxdude Member

    Messages:
    6,907
    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Location:
    Redlands, So
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    The original poster asked about choosing between two specified lenses. I answered the question.
    The OP never mentioned the 105/4 Micro, the 85/1.8, or the E series 100/2.8.

    If you want to propose those instead, go ahead. No need to argue with me. Just state your opinion to the OP and leave me out of it.
     
  17. jfoote

    jfoote Member

    Messages:
    27
    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Location:
    Raleigh, NC
    Shooter:
    35mm
    OK, since I started this mess...the macro would be a nice add on but not a deal breaker. Lately, I have seen the 105 at Keh for about 190 in vg condition...
     
  18. fschifano

    fschifano Member

    Messages:
    3,216
    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Location:
    Valley Strea
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    If you don't need or want macro, the 105 f/2.5 Nikkor is a hard lens to beat at any price. I have one and the Tamron 90 mm macro. Both are fantastic lenses, but the Nikkor has the edge at "normal" working distances.
     
  19. lightdreamer

    lightdreamer Member

    Messages:
    14
    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Yes I have used the Nikkor and many others in this focal length range too, because it is my absolute favourite range. And all I can tell is, that nearly all lenses in the 85 to 105mm range are excellent.

    Here is a link to a shot taken with a Minolta AF 1.4 85mm at f5.6 with my fullframe A900 24MP camera (Warning 11MB file!):

    DSC05842_Magdalena_Lengfelderin_Gedenktafel.JPG

    For sure you could not tell the picture apart from one taken with the Tamron 2.5 90mm or the Nikkor 2.5 105mm at f5.6. That is what I ment with my statement that "there is nothing left to improve". Nearly all lenses are that good in this range.

    BG lightdreamer