Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,817   Posts: 1,581,640   Online: 781
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19
  1. #11
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,751
    Quote Originally Posted by lightdreamer View Post
    I also recommend the Tamron. It is nothing but a excellent lens.
    Nothing left for the Nikkor to top it.
    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.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  2. #12
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    Except for lens speed.
    For macro? Big deal. The "legendary" 105/2.5 and 105/4 Micro Nikkors get their due here:

    http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_spec.html
    Last edited by CGW; 01-02-2011 at 09:22 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  3. #13
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,751
    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    For macro? Big deal.
    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.
    My earlier posts in this thread make my opinions clear.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Valley Stream, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,216
    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.
    Frank Schifano

  5. #15
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    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.
    My earlier posts in this thread make my opinions clear.
    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.

  6. #16
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,751
    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.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    15
    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...

  8. #18

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Valley Stream, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,216
    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.
    Frank Schifano

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    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.
    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

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin