Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,291   Posts: 1,535,439   Online: 828
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19
  1. #1

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

    Tamron SP90mm F2.5 macro or nikkor 105?

    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. #2
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,627
    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 lxdude; 12-30-2010 at 07:00 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    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.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Floor-it-duh
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,127
    Images
    103
    ^^What he said. If you go the 105 route get the Nikkor PC version, if it's pre-Ai
    5x7 Eastman-Kodak kit / B+M 135mm Zeiss Tessar + Compur Deckel
    RB67 Pro S /50 4.5 / 90 3.8 / 180 4.5 / WLF / prism finder / polaback
    FED-2 / 50 2.8 Industar 26m / 85 f2 Jupiter-9
    Canon 300v / A2

  4. #4

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

  5. #5
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,627
    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.
    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.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Montgomery, Il/USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,042
    Are you asking about the 105/2.5 or the 105/2.8 Micro-Nikkor?
    Heavily sedated for your protection.

  7. #7
    ozphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Bangkok, Thailand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,116
    Images
    1
    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. #8

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    14
    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. #9
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,798
    The Nikon 105/4 is no slouch, either--equal to the 105/2.5 and often cheaper.

  10. #10
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,627
    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    The Nikon 105/4 is no slouch, either--equal to the 105/2.5 and often cheaper.
    Except for lens speed.
    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.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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