Nikon 105 2.8 Macro.....VR ? or whats BETTER ?

Messages
3,413
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
Looking to replace my Tamron with a Nikkor and theres an obvious price jump for the VR version.....

I will use it for general stuff as well as Macro....

Thoughts on which one to buy ?
 
Buy the sigma 105 vr instead and save yourself a fortune.
 
I’ve had the Nikon too, don’t get me wrong, it’s great, but the Sigma is just as a great for a fraction of the price. I’ve had the older 105 with the extending barrel too. The image quality was great but the barrel annoyed me. I recently bought the newer model and it’s perfect IMO.
Although I do still prefer the sigma 150mm macro for the slight extra working distance. It’s a big old beast though. The 105 is small enough to ha hold and use all day, but big enough to feel sturdy and good quality.

It wouldn’t be the first sigma lens I’ve preferred over the Nikon variant.
I sold my Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 to buy the sigma
I sold my Nikon 85mm f/1.4 to buy the sigma
I sold my Nikon 300mm f/4 to buy the sigma 120-400mm
I sold my Nikon 50mm f/1.8 to buy the sigma 50mm f/1.4.
 
It begs the question, what's wrong with your Tamron?

I had the latest 90mm Tamron for a very brief amount of time and as far as I can recall it was better than the Sigma.

Between the Sigma and the Nikon I like the Nikon more but it's quite prone to CA, it's not as sharp as the alternatives and it's quite a bit more expensive.
 
Last edited:
It begs the question, what's wrong with your Tamron?

I had the latest 90mm Tamron for a very brief amount of time and as far as I can recall it was better than the Sigma.

Between the Sigma and the Nikon I like the Nikon more but it's quite prone to CA, it's not as sharp as the alternatives and it's quite a bit more expensive.

I dont really like it tbh...its ok image wise, but it feels quite cheap and nasty and the bokeh isnt the best by a long shot......

I had a quick play with a Nikkor on my D500 and the few shots I took did look better in comparison as well.

Im not sure the Tamron IS the latest version either.....

You say the Nikoor isnt as sharp as the alternatives - which are ?
 
Im not sure the Tamron IS the latest version either.....

You say the Nikoor isnt as sharp as the alternatives - which are ?

I found the latest Sigma, Tamron and Sony all to be sharper (I haven't tried Canon's but I'd guess them too)

Between the Sigma and the Nikon I'd pick the Nikon as despite it not being as sharp in every other respect (besides CA) it's better and if you plan to use it generally its other properties will probably be more important to your photos. I did use the Sigma more though because I was shooting a lot of stuff with reflective parts so the CA was hard to ignore and severe enough to still be visible even after basic correction.

You may want to consider the Nikon 60mm as well, might be too short for whatever you're doing but it's a nice little lens and well priced used.
 
If you think you may want to get "Closer than close" and use extension tubes as well, I'd go for something like the 60mm.
I had the 105 vr , it's quite weighty and when put on a set of tubes it becomes quite unwieldy.
 
Last edited:
Now youve all just confused me, and here I am with cash burning my thighs.....
 
I guess something to consider is minimum working distance to subject. A 60mm macro lens plus extension tubes for example, would get you very close to the subject. Fine if the subject doesn't mind and you can get some light in there. Not so great otherwise. On the other had a Sigma 150mm macro lens will give much more minimum distance to subject.

I have a Canon 100mm macro lens and find that to be just right for my needs. If I didn't have the Canon, I'd look at the Sigma 105mm.
 
Just to add some more detail to this....

Discovered tonight my current Tamron is the 272e and NOT the later F017.....

How much difference does this make to my buying decision ?
 
Back
Top