Toronto Photography Meetup Group

Hello Folks...
I dont have true macro lens..
I need some help in figuring out between these two choices...

( the price differnce in the used market is rougly 200$)

Tamaron 180mm 3.5

Nikon 105mm Macro VR...

Either to stick with Nikon or go to Tamaron since its got a 180mm instead of 105 to get that extra mm + 200$

Thanks in advance for the help

The Nikon will work on full frame (I think), will the Tamron? I would go with the Nikon over the Tamron.

...But I would probably go with the Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG APO Macro HSM over the Nikon.

One thing to keep in mind when shooting macro is that usually the larger a lens is, the more challenges you have with vibrations and keeping it steady at high magnification (even when using a tripod).

I would recommend the Tamron 90mm, also since AF is pretty useless for macro work, I also have found the Nikon 55mm f2.8 AIS to be a great performer if you don't need 1:1 magnification.

I have both the 105 VR and 55 f2.8 AIS. With the 55, you really have to be right on top of the subject which isnt possible in many situations. The 105
can also be used as a "portrait" lens should you decide not to spend extra on a 85 or 105 DC. Go for the 105 and you will be very happy.

105VR hands down best macro lens ever....

Great point! Never even considered that.

Thank you Bart,Sandeep,Richard and David

@BART Yea the 150 macro if I find it in CL

@ Sandeep the 90mm macro is good Choice as well..

I am more inclined towards the 105 VR ....
But my original post was I want the comparison between buying this and the 180mm tamaron since its got a better range and Cheaper price ...

So going extra 200-250$ on the nikon side is worth or the extra range and spending less is worth....

I understand nikon's value doesn't go that down on price...
Thank you all for the replies ....

I have the Tam 90 (in Minolta mount).

Great little lens. I dabble with a ringflash, so the results have been off and on (only able to manual focus this lens with the ringflash due to the non IF design-but that's typical of all macro lenses in this focal length).

I considered an upgrade to the Tam 180, but the lack of a limit switch has me wary, and the Minolta 200/4 G is 1. really expensive, and 2. impossible to find.

In short, I'm still happy with the Tam 90.

Note that the Nikon 105mm macro will stop down to 3.2 when you reach minimum focusing distance.

I've had the Canon 180mm and the 100mm (both IS and non IS) as well as the 60mm and have to say that I find the 100mm the much more versitile of the bunch and easiest to use for macro photography (at least for me).
The 180 is just too heavy to lug around and is difficult to wield on the tripod. it doesn't have as close a focus point so sometimes when you are trying to find just that right angle of what you are shooting, you just can't get there. The 60mm is just too short a focal length, and even with a ringflash, when you want 1:1, you end up right on top of the object and get all sorts of shadows and blocked ambient.

anyways, 100mm range would be my recommendation. if you want to get more magnification, add extension tubes.

That explains a lot ..thank you ...

@ theericyip.... Thank you
@Chris yea the 90mm was in my selection for quite sometime.....

So far the 105mm vr is on top of my list....

I appreciate everyone's advice...
cheers

As alluded to earlier, you can also do extension tubes or reversing rings as a cheaper way of getting macro capabilities. The reversed lens can either be threaded on another lens (relay lens) or coupled to the lens mount on the camera body. Of course, with Nikon it is better if the body is a d200, d7000 level of body when you don't have a CPU lens directly coupled for metering in the latter reversing ring case.

Yesh and I went back and forth via PM about macro lenses, so I've already mentioned a few things to him. We didn't speak much of price range.

Does the aperture vary on the Tamron 90? So far it seems that the only ones that don't are the Sigma 105, and the Nikon 105 AIS?

Used to own the 105VR. Its a wonderful lens, and can double as a decent portrait lens. Now I use the Raynox-dcr 250 with my 35 1.8g. The 105 was slightly sharper, and had a better working distance.

That is the same question that I want to ask. Great post.

I got a raynox 250 after watching this video....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Zbov4Jgly8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBHxB2ibfc4&feature=related

That unibrow does look convincing.