Tamron SP90mm F2.5 macro or nikkor 105?

[jfoote]

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

 

[lxdude]

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.

 

[j-dogg]

^^What he said. If you go the 105 route get the Nikkor PC version, if it's pre-Ai

 

[fschifano]

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.

 

[lxdude]

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.

 

[John Koehrer]

Are you asking about the 105/2.5 or the 105/2.8 Micro-Nikkor?

 

[ozphoto]

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.

 

[lightdreamer]

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

 

[CGW]

The Nikon 105/4 is no slouch, either--equal to the 105/2.5 and often cheaper.

 

[lxdude]

The Nikon 105/4 is no slouch, either--equal to the 105/2.5 and often cheaper.

Except for lens speed.

 

[lxdude]

I also recommend the Tamron. It is nothing but a excellent lens.
Nothing left for the Nikkor to top it.

Not to take anything away from the Tamron, but have you used the Nikkor 105 2.5? I've never known of a lens that had nothing left to top.

 

[CGW]

Except for lens speed.

For macro? Big deal. The "legendary" 105/2.5 and 105/4 Micro Nikkors get their due here:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_spec.html

 

[lxdude]

For macro? Big deal.

True. It's not clear if the OP wants to do macro.
Of course the Micro Nikkor is the lens to use for serious macro. If the OP wants a lens for regular shooting, the 105/2.5 Nikkor is a legendary lens in that focal length which I believe will outperform the Tamron 90/2.5 macro at or near infinity. All I did was point out that there is one way the 105 f/4 is not equal to the 2.5. I would expect the 2.5 to be better than the f/4 at or near infinity, especially at apertures between f4 and f2.5.
My earlier posts in this thread make my opinions clear.

 

[fschifano]

Of course, th OP never got back to us as to whether macro capability is desired or not. So until we know that we can argue among ourselves all we want to no avail.

 

[CGW]

True. It's not clear if the OP wants to do macro.
Of course the Micro Nikkor is the lens to use for serious macro. If the OP wants a lens for regular shooting, the 105/2.5 Nikkor is a legendary lens in that focal length which I believe will outperform the Tamron 90/2.5 macro at or near infinity. All I did was point out that there is one way the 105 f/4 is not equal to the 2.5. I would expect the 2.5 to be better than the f/4 at or near infinity, especially at apertures between f4 and f2.5.
My earlier posts in this thread make my opinions clear.

Maybe. The Nikon 85/1.8(NAI or AF) or the E series 100/2.8 are as good. Interesting that Nikon never carried the 105mm focal length forward except for the macro and pricey f2.

 

[lxdude]

The original poster asked about choosing between two specified lenses. I answered the question.
The OP never mentioned the 105/4 Micro, the 85/1.8, or the E series 100/2.8.

If you want to propose those instead, go ahead. No need to argue with me. Just state your opinion to the OP and leave me out of it.

 

[jfoote]

OK, since I started this mess...the macro would be a nice add on but not a deal breaker. Lately, I have seen the 105 at Keh for about 190 in vg condition...

 

[fschifano]

If you don't need or want macro, the 105 f/2.5 Nikkor is a hard lens to beat at any price. I have one and the Tamron 90 mm macro. Both are fantastic lenses, but the Nikkor has the edge at "normal" working distances.

 

[lightdreamer]

Not to take anything away from the Tamron, but have you used the Nikkor 105 2.5? I've never known of a lens that had nothing left to top.

Yes I have used the Nikkor and many others in this focal length range too, because it is my absolute favourite range. And all I can tell is, that nearly all lenses in the 85 to 105mm range are excellent.

Here is a link to a shot taken with a Minolta AF 1.4 85mm at f5.6 with my fullframe A900 24MP camera (Warning 11MB file!):

Dead Link Removed

For sure you could not tell the picture apart from one taken with the Tamron 2.5 90mm or the Nikkor 2.5 105mm at f5.6. That is what I ment with my statement that "there is nothing left to improve". Nearly all lenses are that good in this range.

BG lightdreamer