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.;)
My earlier posts in this thread make my opinions clear.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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!):
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.