Macro Advice Required

[Gandalf]

Having moved over to Nikon I am looking at getting myself a Macro Lens.

My 3 options are;-

Tamron 90mm

Sigma 105mm

Nikkor Micro 105mm

I have used the tamron before on my old system and it was fairly good, would I get better clarity of image if I used one of the other 2 brands. Does the Nikkor's image quality warrant the additional outlay?

Opinions needed. Any photo's to help the discussion are welcomed.

 

[jomike]

All true 1:1 prime macro lenses will give excellent image quality. The extra cost of the Nikon buys you better build quality (metal vs plastic), internal focusing (the lens does not extend as you focus like the Tamron and Sigma), and VR if you are getting the latest version, which does not work at macro focusing distance, but is handy if used as a normal lens. As far as image quality goes, they will be equal to all intents and purposes.

Taken with Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro on a D90, but any of the lenses you mention should get the same.


Hoverfly - Helophilus pendulus by jomike, on Flickr

 

[TCR4x4]

Ive had 3 of those at some point, and IQ wise, there is nothing between them. Out of the 3, I'd rank them 1.)Nikon, 2.)Sigma, 3.)Tamron

Purely because of the better build and feel of the Nikon, its #1. The Sigma is close behind, but I didnt like the extending barrel through focus, same for the Tamron, but I also didnt like the AF/MF clutch system.

Either one can proiduce the goods, its just up to you if you value the extra build quality of the Nikon, or the slightly easier to use Sigma.

 

[Evolutionist]

The Nikon has anti-vibration as far as I know. For macro work in ambient light that feature alone would make the Nikon ultimately the best option as it will allow you to stop the lens down more, giving you more depth of field and in macro work you can never have enough DoF.

 

[TCR4x4]

The VR at macro level doesnt work, its only usefull at longer focus lengths. In fact many people say you should turn VR off at Macro as it reduces the quality.

 

[Evolutionist]

The VR at macro level doesnt work, its only usefull at longer focus lengths. In fact many people say you should turn VR off at Macro as it reduces the quality.

Well, I'll be darned. Learn something new everyday

In that case ignore my comment. I'll also have a go at some macro work with the anti-shake on my Sony switched off and see what happens.

 

[hollis_f]

I'm surprised the Tokina 100mm f2.8 isn't on your list. In a recent review in DCM it came out best for Nikon.

 

[Blind Pugh]

Rather than splash out for a dedicated macro lens, I prefer to use a set of Kenko Auto DG extension tubes as it gives me a flexible option to get fairly close or far away from the subject when used with my Nikon AF-S 70-300mm VR.

Apart from having a slower maximum aperture (which I'd never use for macro work due to miniscule DOF), I find that working within the range of 70mm to 150mm, where that lens is exceptionally good, is ideal for most of my macro work. The IQ difference between it and a dedicated macro, at say f8 to f11, is actually quite small, beyond f11, diffraction effect dominates.

I actually like to use fairly long focal lengths for my close up shots rather than try to get too close, here is an example of a shot using my 70-300 at 300mm and f16 using flash at a butterfly farm.

If you want the ultimate in IQ then of course a dedicated macro lens is best, but you may wish to take a look at this website and the links provided.
http://www.texasmothman.com/tutorials/macro_method.asp