is it worth the price difference?

[salnel]

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

[thelastname]

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.

[kiwi]

Depends whether you think vr is important, I don't think you will notice much difference in iq or focal length

[salnel]

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

[kiwi]

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

[salnel]

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.

[Lani]

The focal length you are looking at also doubles nicely as a portrait lens, so VR can also come in handy here.

[Kerro]

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.

[AnnieP]

I am no expert - but I have a Nikon and use the Tamron 90mm and I love it - it takes some fantastic photos.

[salnel]

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

[Goatch]

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!!

[salnel]

Thanks,Goatch.. something to aspire to Hopefully, by the time I can afford it, I might understand it a bit better too!!
Sally

[colinl]

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.

[salnel]

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

[Obes]

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.

[maccaroneski]

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.

[salnel]

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

[ving]

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.

[salnel]

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

[rellik666]

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.....