Is Nikon 105mm VR Micro better than the Tamrom 90mm?
Subject says it all.
All the pics I see show the two to be fairly similar, aside from the VR and extra 15mm on the Nikon... Money is no object, just seriously want whichever is better. I doubt I'd use a tripod much, and it would mostly be of flora, aside from the occasional insect.
Yes, a million threads on this, but I am just checking again. Someone is asking me which one I want for a present. :D
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=20430766 Having used both
I prefer the 105VR.
The bokeh is superb..the macro capabilities are superb...the build is superb and there's no funky clutch shift to use to get it into macro mode.
Plus, while I don't use the VR for macro shots, it comes in very handy at other times.
The image quality of the nanocrystal coated glass is just something in a league of it's own as well.
--
Jim Fenton
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=20432654 Thom Reviews Both Together
http://www.bythom.com/105AFSlens.htm --
Jim Fenton
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=20432881 Re: Thom Reviews Both Together
ccbrowning wrote:
> Anthony also linked to this. :)
>
> The review is only -ok-, though. If he could have taken more pics
> and put up some comparison ones it would help a lot. Thom does
> seem to imply the Nikon isn't really worth it unless you need VR,
> and they both have the same image quality, though.
Thom's not the type to put lots of image up to prove or disprove anything. If he didn't like the lens, he would have said why and rated it appropriately.
I have the 105 VR. It's a great short telephoto that happens to be able to do macro work too.
--
Tony
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=20434551Re: Thom Reviews Both Together
Thanks. :)
Well, it does seem like the Nikon one is a bit more versatile and better made, so perhaps I'll get it. Doesn't seem like I can lose either way in terms of image quality, which is my main concern...
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=20434990Re: Thom Reviews Both Together
ccbrowning wrote:
> Thom does
> seem to imply the Nikon isn't really worth it unless you need VR,
> and they both have the same image quality, though.
Uh, maybe? But not "the same image quality."
Look, I have both, and will be selling my Tamron shortly, which should tell you something. The Tamron is sharp, without any meaningful IQ defect, and smaller/lighter with a lower quality build. It works well both at macro and long focus distances. It focuses somewhat slower, and has more tendency to hunt. The Nikkor is sharper, without any visible IQ defect I can find, but much heaver/larger, higher quality build, and a higher price to match. It works well at macro and long focus distances, plus the VR adds some desirable handling ability to an already nice lens. the Nikkor focuses very fast, though it will hunt a bit on most macro subjects (I don't know of an AF lens that doesn't, actually). The Nikkor managed to elbow out another lens in my basic backpack kit; the Tamron was in and out as needed.
This is the old Camry/Lexus thing in photographic form. If you're buying for price/performance, you get the Camry (Tamron). If you're buying for best possible quality, you get the Lexus (Nikkor).
--
Thom Hogan
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=20446932