GeekGirl
journeyman
Reged: 21/08/2008
Posts: 60
Loc: Edinburgh, UK
|
|
Hi Folks,
I'm looking to buy a Macro lens for my Nikon D300 and I am having a devil of a time choosing. Through careful thought I've decided to tread the middleground and go for a 100mm (ish) focal length. I have the choice narrowed down to three candidates:
Nikon 105mm f/2.8 AF VRII micro
Tamron 90mm f/2.8
Tokina AF 100mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro D
I have enough money saved up to buy any of these.
Which would you recommend? Does anyone out there have experience of these lenses? I'd really appreciate any advice you might have 
ps. I am buying this principally for macro work, bug pictures etc. I'd rather have a 50mm prime for portrait work.
--------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/heather_dalgarno/
|
Barney
Baht 'at
Reged: 16/12/2005
Posts: 11407
Loc: Harrogate, North Yorks
|
|
Although I've not used one myself, all the people I've heard talk/write about the Nikkor 105mm f:2.8 rave about it. If you can afford one, I'm sure you'd be more than happy with it's macro performance but it's also highly rated for portraiture as well to compliment a 50mm prime.
--------------------
"Wrong on so many different levels."
Blog - Contre Dour - Capturing the ordinary for posterity.
Flickr
|
daft_biker
Action Man!
Reged: 11/10/2006
Posts: 10534
Loc: Oot n aboot
|
|
I agree...I'd want the Nikkor too. It is however quite big, bulky and expensive for a 100mm(ish) macro. The Tamron is great value and a bit more compact.
I'm not familiar with the Tokina but doubt it's a bad lens...macro lenses tend to be pretty good but somehow I doubt it's built anything like as well as the Nikkor.
Where are you planning on using the lens Heather? I see you like hillwalking so suspect you'll know the Pentlands....do you know the wildlife garden up the road behind Flotterstone? Tis a cracking wee place jammed full of wildflowers and beasties this time of year....a little piece of macro paradise 
--------------------
Andrew (BSRIPN) ... My pics on Flickr.
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.
|
OneTen
'Two Breakfasts'
Reged: 23/06/2003
Posts: 4102
Loc: Lancashire
|
|
I use the Canon lenses so not much help to you. However, I don't think you can go wrong with any of these macro lenses and you can also include the Sigma 105mm. There's someone on this forum obtaining stunning results with the Tamron 90mm, I've been blown away with his work. Same applies to the Sigma based on the work of others I've seen.
--------------------
Richard .......... My Flickr
|
Fen
BAD WOLF
Reged: 12/03/2002
Posts: 25646
Loc: London'ish
|
|
Quote:
Although I've not used one myself, all the people I've heard talk/write about the Nikkor 105mm f:2.8 rave about it.
It is a very nice lens. I have one and do most of my flower work with it as well as photographing jewellery and other things.
--------------------
Fen .......... My Fen's AP Galleries - My Blog - My Flickr
"Apologies to right-eyed shooters. You're screwed."
- Joe Mcnally
|
Benchista
Which Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 42182
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
A friend of mine has both the Nikkor and an old version of the Tamron, which he bought recently because he does a lot of IR work and the Nikkor suffers more from hotspots than the Tamron. He's completely delighted with the optical quality of both.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
Dorset_Mike
Gadget Man
Reged: 11/05/2006
Posts: 3076
Loc: Poole, Dorset.
|
|
Looking at WHE prices I see the Nikon is about £250 more than the Tamron and Tokina offerings, the only major difference to me would be VR on the Nikon which the others don't have.
If you do a lot of hand held then the Nikon has a considerable edge, if however you use mostly tripod or other suport then the question is would the £250 be better spent on say a better tripod, flash, remote or other accessory or lens.
I have the Tamron which I use on a Minolta 5D which has in body stabilisation, I'm more than satisfied with the optical quality.
--------------------
Cheers, MIKE 
 
|
daft_biker
Action Man!
Reged: 11/10/2006
Posts: 10534
Loc: Oot n aboot
|
|
Not sure I'd see VR as a considerable advantage as it becomes less and less useful the closer you go and is effectively useless for true macro(1:1 and greater) because shake in any direction is likely to mess up the focus. Depends what you want to shoot and at what kind of quality but I agree it makes the lens more versatile and is a nice to have. For £250(or so?) a flash might be more useful than VR for macro. Maybe £100ish for some extension tubes too?..most of the beasties I see round here pretty wee
--------------------
Andrew (BSRIPN) ... My pics on Flickr.
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.
|
Gordon_McGeachie
Joke Historian
Reged: 19/01/2007
Posts: 4854
Loc: East Yorkshire,
|
|
Quote:
Looking at WHE prices I see the Nikon is about £250 more than the Tamron and Tokina offerings, the only major difference to me would be VR on the Nikon which the others don't have.
If you do a lot of hand held then the Nikon has a considerable edge, if however you use mostly tripod or other suport then the question is would the £250 be better spent on say a better tripod, flash, remote or other accessory or lens.
I have the Tamron which I use on a Minolta 5D which has in body stabilisation, I'm more than satisfied with the optical quality.
I too have the Tamron for use on my Minolta Dynax 7d and Sony A700, and it gives pinsharp results,I just cant find any fault with it at all..........
I suppose it is fair to say, that if you can afford your makers own then go for it, only you know how much you can justify spending, but what ever you choose, have fun........a macro lens will open a whole new world to you. 
--------------------
She (Avro Vulcan XH558) Took To The Sky Like A Lovesick Angel.
|
Dave_Cox
old'n'grumpy
Reged: 12/07/2006
Posts: 4359
Loc: The back end of nowhere!
|
|
I use the Tamron on my Pentax, often with a 2x converter added, and my wife uses the Tokina 100mm on her Nikon D200. Both are exellent and very capable lenses.
I would say that a good flash gun with the ability to go below horizontal is more useful than VR - I often turn off the K20s anti-shake for macro shots. We both use Metz flashes that work with the cameras own electronics to give good exposures at close range.
--------------------
Growing old disgracefully!
http://snapper56.deviantart.com/gallery/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dave2006/
|
cpfc12
member
Reged: 04/02/2008
Posts: 101
Loc: Lewes, East Sussex.
|
|
I have the Tamron lens too. Fantastic performance. Nice and light too.
--------------------
Simple Southern boy.
|
Spanishphil
newbie
Reged: 07/06/2009
Posts: 1
|
|
Hi, I think if you want to shoot bugs you should seriously consider a longer focal length lens as at 100mm you will be v close and will find they ll move/fly away. I use a Sigma 150mm macro which is slightly sharper than my friends Nikon 105mm, its a cracking lens ( Google some reviews ) and also a lot cheaper (£450) than the Nikon and I have taken some excellent macros with it. Only drawback is its heavy so with my usual set up of D200 Sigma and SB800 plus small fill flash on a bracket I do get some backache after an hour or so creeping round sneeking up on bugs. By the way you cannot sucessfully easily do live bug pics with a tripod its hugely easier to hand hold and use flash, also VR is nt needed and its better to focus manually. Hope this helps, please ask if you d like to see my set up or any of my macro bug pics.
|
MickLL
Too Grand, Man
Reged: 01/08/2004
Posts: 3896
Loc: SE England
|
|
Quote:
By the way you cannot sucessfully easily do live bug pics with a tripod its hugely easier to hand hold and use flash,
That may well be your opinion but it's not a fact. Look at the various posts that I have made (Appraisal and exhibition rooms). ALL of them were taken with a tripod and none of them with a flash. All that's required is patience and a modicum of fieldcraft.
MickLL
|
Rhys
Sasquatch
Reged: 15/01/2004
Posts: 4049
Loc: York (home of the speedbump)
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
By the way you cannot sucessfully easily do live bug pics with a tripod its hugely easier to hand hold and use flash,
That may well be your opinion but it's not a fact. Look at the various posts that I have made (Appraisal and exhibition rooms). ALL of them were taken with a tripod and none of them with a flash. All that's required is patience and a modicum of fieldcraft.
MickLL
plus a few dead bugs strategically placed
--------------------
BSRIPN (Officially full of it..)
RGMP.co.uk (My Website.. getting there at last.)
Benchinistas.org.uk The home of Benchism
|
MickLL
Too Grand, Man
Reged: 01/08/2004
Posts: 3896
Loc: SE England
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
By the way you cannot sucessfully easily do live bug pics with a tripod its hugely easier to hand hold and use flash,
That may well be your opinion but it's not a fact. Look at the various posts that I have made (Appraisal and exhibition rooms). ALL of them were taken with a tripod and none of them with a flash. All that's required is patience and a modicum of fieldcraft.
MickLL
plus a few dead bugs strategically placed
And I forgot to mention the super-glue.
MickLL
|
alanS
The Flameproof Dr Dust
Reged: 30/09/2005
Posts: 4737
Loc: Up North, England.
|
|
I have a Sigma 150mm f2.8 HSM. It seems like a good lens and the extra reach, working distance and HSM are lovely. There's no IS of course and I find that it's extremely difficult to hand hold steadily. It's not much of a problem for general photography at a distance when light levels are good but less good for close up hand held stuff when the shutter speed might have to come down.
--------------------
Alan's defence lawyer claimed that "Booze played no part in his typo's."
|
willie45
Oor Wullie
Reged: 08/05/2006
Posts: 1571
|
|
Another vote for the Tamron here. I have had it for a while now and am very happy with its performance. I don't use Nikon so can't advise on that I'm afraid but I would have said saving £250 without compromising on image quality is always good.
If I recall correctly G Crawley reviewed the Tamron in AP a while back and was very complimentary. Anyway, there are a number of very very positive reviews online.
Willie
|
davec223
newbie
Reged: 29/12/2006
Posts: 1
Loc: New Milton, Hampshire
|
|
I have just got a nikon 105vr,boy it is unbelivably sharp, I would not hesitate in recommending it
135.13KB 799×535px
As for VR not being useful this was 1/10th second exposure, sorry that the image is not that interesting, straight from camera and converted to jpeg, nothing else.
Mod note: Please see guide to posting images here
|
Malcolm_Stewart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/2005
Posts: 4416
Loc: Milton Keynes, UK
|
|
At the time of writing, 07.25, 27/06/09, I note that there's 17 responses here, with just 3 aimed at the OP, who hasn't responded to what is a very informative thread. I wonder if this has something to do with the majority of the responses being aimed at the previous post, rather than the OP? Perhaps the OP with few threads doesn't visit here that often, and with just 3 replies in her email in-box thinks we're not interested.
I've noticed this in other threads, and wonder if some change to the forum formatting could help?
Lens wise, I bought the Sigma 150 f2.8 last winter, and am still waiting for some decent butterflies to target! Saw a common white two days ago, and that's about it. Damsel and dragon flies seem mainly absent this year.
The green shield bugs have disappeared, as have their reddish friends, but something is now gently demolishing my piles of garden shreddings - wood pigeons getting nest material for their 2nd. sitting, I think.
--------------------
Malcolm Stewart
|
Learning
Ethelred the Ill-Named
Reged: 26/09/2006
Posts: 3688
Loc: Nottingham
|
|
I use a 105 Nikkor VR. Its optical and VR performance beats any other lens in my possession. Consider it a macro and a medium telephoto.
Be aware of its bulk and weight. It is far heavier than you would expect of a 105 f2.8. It is much fatter. It is as long as you would expect of a long focus rather than a telephoto. The focal length seems to get less the closer you focus.
In spite of its disadvantages I know that the image quality in sharpness, contrast, drawing and even bocah makes it a superb lens.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
