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.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4111/5193554470_f15477f2d6_z.jpg

[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.
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_t2Kobd5NN70/TOkAjPYzMVI/AAAAAAAAFYY/E3RLXqGWYAE/s800/OBZ_005894.jpg

[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/forum/showthread.php?71542-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:th3: (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.....

[arthurking83]

I also have the Nikon 105VR too, and while it's a great lens, it's not an uber fantastic macro lens, and I think the Sigma 150mm is a better lens for macro work(sharper).

The Tammy will match the Nikon in just about every aspect, both bokeh(as a portrait lens) and sharpness.

As Lani said, the 105VR comes in handy when doing portraits as the VR allows you to get more keepers at slightly slower shutter speeds(such as 1/40-1/60s), where subject movement hasn't caused problems.

I also had to decide between a Tammy 90 and Nikon 105VR and went for the 105VR due to the VR feature too.
Can't say I have any macro shots taken where the VR has helped at all.. and that means real macro images at 1:2 or 1:1 ... not just closely focused shots. For chasing insects at pretty close range the VR will come in handy, but I doubt it'll help anyone for proper macro closeups.

The term macro is becoming a pretty loose interpretation of something that is clearly defined too nowadays, so when you say you want to do macro images, do you mean very closely focused images of stuff, or real macro where the subject is almost touching the front lens element?
if you want to do a lot of 1:1 macro, then forget the VR feature, and factor in a very sturdy tripod and head into the price(do you have a tripod, and is it very sturdy?)

Things about each lens that I've noticed along the way:

Tamron 90, great lens, would buy one in an instant, but the annoying focus system lets it down. in every other aspect this is the best lens overall in a value for money sense.

Nikon 105VR: size.. BIG!(for a 105mm lens) but this never bothers me. the AF-S was a clincher for me. this lens has trouble auto focusing sometimes, even at 2m focused distances or more. it winds in and then out and can't decide what it wants to do. BUT!! the AF-S is the key here, it allows you to twist the focus ring in real time and then the lens focuses perfectly. VR is great to have when using VR is appropriate. If you can afford it and justify the expense, this is the lens to have over the long run.

Sigma 150mm : Has HSM(same as AF-S) and from my brief play, focused very nicely. Images look sharper to me, than the Nikon at close focused range. Most handy feature is the tripod collar. When doing proper macro stuff, you need to understand the importance of this simple addition. Model I played with didn't have Sigma's OS variant of Nikon's VR feature, but I think the newest version may have. Sigma is cheaper than the Nikon, and from the single image I have that could be loosely described as a 'portrait', I'd say the Sigma will also be portrait lens, judging from the bokeh.
(Note: I mostly use my 105VR as my preferred portrait lens. Not that it's a bad macro(1:1) lens, it's probably more that I was expecting more from it. It is a sharp lens tho, and for sure you'll be impressed by it, but I believe that after a while, you may find yourself in a situation where you may want more from it.

[salnel]

Thanks, Arthurking,..a lot of info there. My ambition (if I live that long) would be to take photos like Teitzy. So I have another question for you. Yesterday, she reviewed the Tmaron 60 and I am now very interested in that one. I like that the lens doesn't extend, her reviews (and others) said it was very fast and sharp. I would really be using this lens for macro work and yes, 1-1, so I don't think I want to pay extra for VR. I do have a tripod (manfrotto) which I hope is sturdy..cost me enough!. It takes my D90 and 18-200 lens and seems very stable.
What is your opinion of the Tamron 60? It is more than the 90 but not as much as the Nikon. I am not really in to chasing bugs around the garden..most of them creep me out! I am much more interested in flowers.
This really is very difficult..because there is also the Nikon 60 as well!!
Thanks for the help.

[arthurking83]

Never seen one, let alone used one, but check the lens specs before you commit.
it'd be great to have that nice fast f/2 ability, but for macro, one word describes it best.... 'useless'. I can't ever imagine using f/2 at macro magnifications, and expecting to see any detail in the subject. (would make for nice abstracts tho).

The only benefit of a fast lens in macro terms is a brighter viewfinder, but you have a camera capable of LiveView mode and I've found when things get dark, sometimes Lv mode can be a better way to do things.(hint.. get a very bright LED torch :th3)

Problem with the 60mm is that you need to get in a lot closer, and that means that you have to be prepared to get your tripod in closer too. Not an easy task in every situation, so you may have to manufacture your images, as in a studio or other controlled environment or something like that. I've never done that, other than a few quick test shots of silly things like details of speaker boxes or laser print lines on a sheet of paper. I've only ever done macro images out in the field, having to battle wind and blinding sunlight or whatever, and a lot of the time, the subject you want to photograph is sure to be in an awkward location where the tripod just wont get into. :p
Having the ability to get further back is always a bonus.. hence longer focal lengths are generally considered to be a feature.

I've found, both in all (sound)professionals opinion's, and in my own use that autofocus is not something you want when you're doing 1:1 macro work. I never try using AF on my 105VR, simply because in the attempts that I have tried, it never focuses where it's supposed too, after countless attempts at winding in then out, then in again... and so on. till I give up and simply manually do it myself. What I tend to do is set the focus scale at 1:1 and then move the camera into what i think is a reasonable position. This is where the tripod collar is indispensable(for me), because 10 times out of 10, I'm in the wrong position and have to move the tripod maybe only a few millimeters back and then forth. Having a tripod collar and a long plate on the tripod collar can allow you up to 100mm of fore-aft travel(with the right equipment). just makes it all easier to do it.. not imperative to have.
This is where the Sigma 150mm will eventually make life as a macro photographer easier (and quicker).

I'm not convinced that a lens that extends is a bad thing(well macro lenses at least).
if you look at the images of each lens already mentioned, (eg) look at a 105VR, the lenses that are IF(internal focus) and hence don't extend, are all larger lenses than they need be when packed away, but more importantly will all have front lens elements that are at the very front of the lens, and therefore not shielded from stray light. The Tamron 90mm sure does extend when focusing close and is longer than the 105VR when at closest focused distance, but more importantly the front lens element is deeply recessed into the front of the lens. This provides natural protection from stray light, and having used my 105VR for long enough now, I always use the lens hood. Having stray light on the front lens element reduces contrast a fair amount on the Nikon lens(and I tend to shoot this lens a lot in bright sunlight too). It's an automatic reaction now, to fit the lens hood the correct way 'round on this lens, where I'm usually too lazy to do so with any of my other lenses, unless I absolutely have to for IQ purposes. With the Tammy 90, I can see that this is not always necessary unless the sun is almost in the line of sight of the subject matter. So adding the lens hood to most IF macro lenses(as a matter of course due to the exposed front element) then makes these types of lenses a lot longer(in effect) than the Tammy, as the Tammy can (or should) do better than any of the IF lenses without the need to add the lens hood. Working distance with the lens hood in place on the Nikon 105VR is .. well.. almost places your subject in the lens hood! :p
Try shooting in low light at f/16 and macro magnifications, and you may understand how this can be a problem in some (many?) situations. This is partly why I don't do all that much macro photography. it seems like such a lot of work, just to get a few silly images.
I have to say too tho, this may change, as I've now found the necessary parts I need for my tripod head to turn the mounting plate into a a more versatile sideways and fore aft adjustable mount, that is, without the need for a tripod collar on the lens.

A cheaper way to get VR is with the Nikon 85mm f/3.5VR lens, so don't dismiss this lens. Not the best lens ever made, by the few reviews I've read about it, but may still provide hours of fun as a macro lens.

I think, if you're doing a lot of flowers for macro(or close up) subjects, the wider angle of the Tamron 60mm may come in handy too. I'm not a botany enthusiast type, but a few weeks back I did spend a considerable amount of time out in the bush(Shepparton) photographing a lot of flowers with the Nikon 105VR. VR off, on tripod and a lot of them at no where near macro maginfications, or even 1:3 magnification as many of them are just way too big fit the entire flower in the frame. This means stepping back more(with a long focal length lens) and that's also not always possible... without the need to 'deforest' the immediate area of clutter(shhhh!.. I didn't say that ;)) There were a few infinitesimally small flowers that did benefit from the macro capability of the Nikon lens, and were shot at very close to 1:1. So if flowers are your only concern, then the Tamron 60mm makes a lot of sense.
It's only when the bug really bites(NOT LITERALLY! :rolleyes:) that you may end up regretting having a short focal length lens.

Apologies for the long winded reply, but the end result is that it's all about weighing up the pros and cons for each lens, and then deciding which of the compromises you have to make for each lens, that will get you the best bang for your bucks.
Long focal length, short focal length?.. VR, tripod collar?.. etc, etc. Ideally you want it all in the one lens. But that's not possible, and so almost ideally, you may want all the lenses listed so far in this thread.
Once you understand the list of pros and cons for each lens(and possibly your current gear), at least you'll be better informed to make a decision that suits your requirements.

[maccaroneski]

As you can get a Tammy 90 for about $400 landed (grey import) and if you hate it as soon as you get it you could probably sell it for $350, that's where I'd go. Unless you can spring now the extra $500 for the Nikon 105 which as Artur says will see more us in the long run.

[ving]

working didstances @ 1:1 are very similar with the 2 tarmon lenses. the 60mm is 10cm and the 90mm is 11cm.... you gain a whole 1 cm by getting the 90mm. the nikon 85/3.5 however manages a good 15cm of working space @ 1:1. its worth looking at if 10cm in not enough.... mind you teitzy manages the tammy 60mm exen with extension tube very well and that would be less than 10cm.

[Lance B]

I cannot advise on the Tamron as I haven't used one, but the results I have seen from it are excellent. I do, hoever, have the Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR and it is a gem of a lens. The sharpness (I hate that word) is quite amazing and VR is a help but moreso for longer camera to subject distances, like portraiture etc, rather than actual macro. I do not know the extra stops of handholdability you lose the closer you get to the subject, but I seem to remember reading that you may only get 1 stop at best at macro distances and this increases the further you move from the subject matter.

Which way to go? Hmm, that is a difficult question. If you have the money, I would go the Nikon, but if you are struggling for cash, then I am sure the Tamron would still be a great purchase.

[salnel]

Thanks everyone for your advice..this is becoming a nightmare!! Just when I think I have a decision, someone puts up another lens:) I think I need to go to camera shop now and actually put them in my hands. I did that with my camera. researched, thought I had decided on one but came home with the D90 instead! (It just felt right).
Trouble is, as Arthurking said, there is no ideal lens..they all have pros and cons and, of course, price is a factor as well, especially as I want/need other things :)
So, it's off to the shop, with my list of possibles (thanks to you all) and I will let you know what I decided!!

[loonyrobot]

Sorry for the noob question but I want to make sure I understand something - the longer the lens, the further away from the subject you can be? My wife is interested in taking macro photos of insects with her Nikon D90 so I was researching the Nikkor 105, but I see the Sigma 180 is roughly in the same price range. Or do I have it all wrong?

Edit: I should add that she will probably work handheld most of the time.

[arthurking83]

You have it all right loonyrobot :th3:

I'm not sure on the Sigma 180mm macro lens'es ability, but I do know that the 150mm version, which is more modern is a very nice lens.

If your budget can stretch as far as the Nikon 200mm f/4, that would be about as good as you can get in macro terms for Nikon(with AF and tripod collar and so forth). But they are expensive lenses.

[loonyrobot]

If your budget can stretch as far as the Nikon 200mm f/4, that would be about as good as you can get in macro terms for Nikon(with AF and tripod collar and so forth). But they are expensive lenses.

Sadly, no, looks like that's around $2300, and I'm probably more in the $1000-$1500 bracket.

I'm pretty much down to three choices;
- Sigma 180mm f/3.5 APO EX DG IF Macro HSM $1177
- Sigma Lens 150mm f/2.8 APO EX DG HSM Macro $957
- Nikkor Lens - AF-S VR Micro 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED $1299

Any help in differentiating the three would be welcome. She's using a Nikon D90, is far more likely to be shooting handheld and using natural light, and, um, what else would matter?

Sorry, hope I'm not hijacking the thread, it's just very similar to the question I asked in my own thread before somebody kindly pointed me here :)

Thanks,
Lindsay

[salnel]

I must admit I laughed when I saw you had asked the same question as me:D This has been SO difficult ! So now I am going to throw another lens into the mix. Ving mentioned the Nikon 85 so I went and looked it up. It came in cheaper than the 105, lighter and had good reviews. Has anyone got any opinions on this one? It has VR too.Promise this will be my last question on this..besides, I think I am running out of lenses!!!

[arthurking83]

According to Photozone(only review I've seen of the 85mm) it's almost as sharp as the 105VR.
Photozone does state tho, that none of his reviews are done at close focus distances, and macro lenses can be(or have been known) to produce indifferent results at macro range as compared to infinity focus. The 105VR gets a lot of good comments, mainly due to the fact that not many folks shoot it at 1:1 macro focused distances. At more than about 2meters focused distance, it's a ripper lens. I've just never found it as ripper-ish as you focus closer with it(just good).

There seem to be a few benefits of the 85mm over the 105mm Nikons. 85mm seems to have a lot less CA(chromatic abberation). Smaller lens too. But the drawback is that it's a Dx only lens.. in the far distant future this may be an issue for you, if you ever go full frame. Not that it won't work.. but as long as you fully understand the limitations of a Dx lens.
I'm not too sure of the price difference between 105 and 85 mm micros, but the 85mm would have to be at least $200-300 cheaper(closer to the Sigma 150mm at least) to make it worth it.

I don't think it's as difficult as you seem to think it is. I think the main issue here is that you are parting with a considerable sum of money, and you want to be sure you get the correct gear. it's only natural.
Going by what you've posted so far, I think you may inevitably benefit from having the VR in the lens(or OS in the case of the Sigma 150mm if available yet), as you said your main interest is in shooting flowers. I've found at times that (n a slight breeze) having the tripod can be a liability, and shooting handheld with shutter speeds in the 1/60 range and relying on VR to get more keepers than may otherwise be possible.. Makes for a quicker workflow system, where you get the shot and move on(to the next subject matter).

[smallfooties]

I have the sigma 105mm lens... i think it's pretty good... i quite like it... but then again... i have not tried the other lenses and have not seen what they can do... but here's an example of a picture i took with the sigma...

PS: my macro skills at the moment don't do the lens any justice... kekeke....

[Viper]

Having had both lenses, i sold my Nikon in favor of the Tamron, my copy is absolutely sharp as a tack. I found the VR no useful for macro work at all and my 105 surfed bad front focus issues.

[salnel]

Just thought I would let you know that I finally got my lens (thanks to santa) and ended up with the Nikor 85mm..so far I am very pleased with it and am enjoying the world of macro very much. I just wanted to thank every one for their time to help me..much appreciated:)