User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  2
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 35

Thread: is it worth the price difference?

  1. #1
    Ausphotography Veteran salnel's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 2010
    Location
    Geelong
    Posts
    3,849
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    is it worth the price difference?

    Hi,
    I need a bit of help regarding macro lenses. I have been looking at the Nikor 105 and the Tamron 90. The best price I have seen is $812 for the 105 and $350 for the Tamron. My question is ..is the 105 worth the huge difference in price? I am very new to this and I don't mind saving if the 105 is the better lens (even tho I really would like it yesterday!!)
    Any advice would be appreciated.
    Sally
    D610 and D90 with a 16-35mm f/4,a 70-200mm f/4 ,a 300mm f/4 +TC11 convertor, 18-200mmDX and 85mm micro Dx.

    Sally...CC always appreciated

    My Flickr: www.flickr.com/photos/salnel

  2. #2
    Member thelastname's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Mar 2008
    Location
    Townsville, QLD
    Posts
    48
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm not Nikon so I don't know about lens quality, but having the extra reach on a macro lens is always handy, so you don't have to get in so close and risk scaring your subject if it's bugs.
    My photos on flickr

    My videos on YouTube

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,837
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Depends whether you think vr is important, I don't think you will notice much difference in iq or focal length
    Darren
    Gear : Nikon Goodness
    Website : http://www.peakactionimages.com
    Please support Precious Hearts
    Constructive Critique of my images always appreciated

  4. #4
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Threadstarter
    salnel's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 2010
    Location
    Geelong
    Posts
    3,849
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think the VR issue is what I am trying to work out. From what I have read, macro photography generally requires a tripod/monopod, so if that is the case, why would you need VR but, having said that, I have recently seen photos taken hand held with the 105 and they were brilliant. (mind you, taken by much more experienced people than me). Can I ask you, then, would you pay the extra $400 for image stabilization or save the $400 and put it towards another lens? (especially as you don't think there is a lot of difference in iq and focal length?)
    Thanks for your help
    Sally

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,837
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well, vr is very handy of course, I did neither, I bought an older nikon 105 for about the same price as the tamron....I just like to have nikon only, I'm sure the tamron is a good lens, all macros are really

  6. #6
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Threadstarter
    salnel's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 2010
    Location
    Geelong
    Posts
    3,849
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I just had another look at the hints for macro and the first part says that he uses a tripod only 50% of the time so, VR would be very handy to have (I need all the help I can get). I also like Nikon so I think I might be saving for a while longer!
    Thanks very much for your help..I feel like I have just entered a very confusing world and, if you make a mistake, it can be a rather expensive one!
    Sally.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    26 May 2008
    Location
    Launceston
    Posts
    2,014
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The focal length you are looking at also doubles nicely as a portrait lens, so VR can also come in handy here.
    Cheers, Lani.
    Bodies: Nikon D700, D300 Primes: Nikon 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.4G, 105mm VR 2.8, 300mm f4. Zooms: Nikon 14-24 2.8, 24-70 2.8, 70-200VR II 2.8, Sigma 10-20mm Processing: Photoshop CS5 extended, LR 3.2.


  8. #8
    Ausphotography Regular Kerro's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Aug 2010
    Location
    Mandurah
    Posts
    802
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    For what it's worth, I have a Canon 100mm macro without IS and don't seem to be having any
    problems getting sharp shots. And it sometimes doubles as a walk around lens for other than
    macro shots.
    cheers Kerro



    I shoot with Canon cameras and
    Canon and Sigma lenses

  9. #9
    Always Learning ....
    Join Date
    07 Jul 2010
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    451
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I am no expert - but I have a Nikon and use the Tamron 90mm and I love it - it takes some fantastic photos.

  10. #10
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Threadstarter
    salnel's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 2010
    Location
    Geelong
    Posts
    3,849
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    thanks everyone..a hard decision to make..I think i like the idea of VR..just to be a bit more versitle. I know both are good so I will have to see how the finances go (and how impatient I get)
    Sally

  11. #11
    Photoholic Goatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Jul 2009
    Location
    Nannup
    Posts
    404
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi I've got the 105 VR and you won't be disappointed , it's a cracker of a lens , sharp as , they do take a brilliant photo , just remember with the 2.8 you have such a shallow depth of field that in some instances you will struggle to get the whole insect into focus , what this comes down to is experience and practice , some of my early macros were dismal only because I didn't understand the whole aperture and depth of field thing , you will find that only having a 3mm depth of field in focus does make life tough but it is worth chasing the big picture!!
    Does a one legged duck swim in an eliptic circle


  12. #12
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Threadstarter
    salnel's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 2010
    Location
    Geelong
    Posts
    3,849
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks,Goatch.. something to aspire to Hopefully, by the time I can afford it, I might understand it a bit better too!!
    Sally

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    19 Jul 2009
    Location
    Caboolture
    Posts
    131
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I haven't much experience with macro, but it is something I would like to develop. I bought the 105 nikon lens a couple of months ago. I haven't had much of a chance to use it yet, just a few shots around the garden. All have been hand held. I took this one on the weekend. The camera is a D60.

    Last edited by colinl; 22-11-2010 at 9:51pm.
    Cheers
    Col

  14. #14
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Threadstarter
    salnel's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 2010
    Location
    Geelong
    Posts
    3,849
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    That is so pretty,Col..Love the color...I think I have decided on the 105...I think the Vr will come in very handy and the reviews I have read have all been very good so thanks for the advice and thanks for the pic
    Sally

  15. #15
    Member Obes's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Mar 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    15
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have a Sigma 105, but after playing with the Tokina 100 I would have gotten that. The tokina 100 (pro) reviews very well.
    That said I am currently losing sleep over buying a Sigma 150 or the Nikon 200 for the extra working distance.

    Just remember to turn VR off when you use a tripod.
    Sean O'Brien
    Harsh C&C always wanted, it's usually the best sort.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2009
    Location
    Northern Beaches, Sydney
    Posts
    2,338
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You won't regret going with the Nikon - I had the Tamron, sold it, and got the Nikon, and it is one of my favourite lenses.

    The VR can come on very handy for non-macro stuff. The Nikon has a better build quality, but is bigger and heavier. The Nikon is much quicker to focus (although is by no means one of the quicker lenses), and the Nikon does not extend or retract when focussing. I think that the Nikon makes a nicer portrait lens due to the quality of the out of focus areas.

    If you want a strict macro lens, then go with the Tamron. If you are looking for versatility, get the Nikon.

  17. #17
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Threadstarter
    salnel's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 2010
    Location
    Geelong
    Posts
    3,849
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    That might change my mind to the Tamron..I don't take portraits (every one runs a mile when I have my camera). I wanted this lens really just for macro work. With you saying the Tamron for macro, then that might suit me better. As I said at the start, $400 is a lot of money when I want to take close ups of flowers, bugs etc . Boy, this is hard
    The other thing ,of course, is that being a beginner, my wish list is growing every day and the price of the Tamron is a real factor in all of this!
    Thank you everyone for your advice..
    Sally

  18. #18
    Amor fati! ving's Avatar
    Join Date
    28 Jun 2007
    Location
    St Helens Park
    Posts
    7,275
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    the tamron would be my sugestion. that said I have also seemon this forum some absolutely stunning shots from the tamron 60mm/f2. just search for some of teitzy's work... heres a link to one thread.
    http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...2-Variety-Pack

    I personally use a 30 year old nikkor micro 55mm f3.5 with an extension tube and 3x TC... it works great for me. look for some of my macro threads.
    its not what you use but how you use it really. i dont think there is such a creature as a bad macro lens. shorter FL means less working distance, and thats about it.

  19. #19
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Threadstarter
    salnel's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 2010
    Location
    Geelong
    Posts
    3,849
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yes, I have seen Teitzy"s work..STUNNING!.. I do think the Tamron will be the one for me and on the plus side, I can afford it now (or maybe Santa will be good to me!)
    Thanks again
    Sally

  20. #20
    Ausphotography Regular
    Join Date
    05 Jan 2010
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,832
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by maccaroneski View Post
    You won't regret going with the Nikon - I had the Tamron, sold it, and got the Nikon, and it is one of my favourite lenses.

    The VR can come on very handy for non-macro stuff. The Nikon has a better build quality, but is bigger and heavier. The Nikon is much quicker to focus (although is by no means one of the quicker lenses), and the Nikon does not extend or retract when focussing. I think that the Nikon makes a nicer portrait lens due to the quality of the out of focus areas.

    If you want a strict macro lens, then go with the Tamron. If you are looking for versatility, get the Nikon.
    Thanks Tony....Now I want to get rid of the Sigma and get the NIkon......

    Sigma is a good starter lens. but is slow to focus and does extend....but for the price it is good.......But TBH I would go Nikon now.....

    Good lenses are worth paying the extra for or you will have to replace in the future.....
    Call me Roo......
    Nikon D300s, Nikon 35mm 1.8 DX, Nikkor 50mm 1.4 Af-S, Nikon 18-200mm VR, Nikon 70-200VRII 2.8, Sigma 105 Macro, Sigma 150-500mm f5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM, Tokina 12-24mm, Sb-600, D50, Nikon 1.7 T/C, Gitzo CF Monopod

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •