Which would be the best lense for me? I will be using this for jewelry and outdoor shots of insects.
Nikon 105mm f/2.8 Micro af-s vr
or
Tokina AT-X 100mm f/2.8 PRO D Macro
I know there is a big price difference in the two but im not to worried about that.. Is the nikon lense alot better then this tokina. Ive read good reviews about both lenses. What would u all recommend?
Currently I have a Nikon D90, 18-105mm Kit Lense, Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VR, Sigma 10-20mm, Nikon 50mm 1.4, SB-900.
The Nikon has Four things over the Tokina. It has a faster "Silent Wave Auto Focus", Internal focusing system, Which means that the lens doesn't extend when focusing. When shooting bugs the Tokina will move back and forth to gain focus and can scare away a small critter, VR, and Chromatic abrasions are less on the Nikon. So to me I think the Nikon lens is better.
Not to mention this lens works as a great Portrait lens.
-Adam
Nov 17, 2009 at 11:25 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
You might want to consider the new 85mm VR micro. Less expensive and it's smaller and lighter than the 105VR micro, thus easier to work with. Of course for insects, you want all the reach you can get. From what I have seen, long tele lenses with tubes seems to be the way to go in that regard.
The Tokina exhibits CA, which you will see in the reflections of any metal jewelry you shoot. I'd look at the Tamron or Sigma variants, or the Nikon - but I personally don't think the VR lens is worth the $ if your primary purpose is macro (since VR is not effective that close). The 105 AF-D can be found for around $400 used and is a great lens too.
I'd go for the Tamron 90. I had it, it is excellent. If you want a lens with VR, AFS and internal focusing then get the Nikon 85mm VR. The 105VR is a waste of money on a D90. And VR and AFS is a waste of money for table-top work (get a tripod, it will make your life easy).
thanks for the comments.. I will look into all of these lenses suggested. I do have a tripod too to work with Not a good one but it gets the job done..
Nov 17, 2009 at 04:19 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
jonohara wrote:
thanks for the comments.. I will look into all of these lenses suggested. I do have a tripod too to work with Not a good one but it gets the job done..
The new 85mm is a bit shorter in focal length but it's also a shorter lens (neither extend to focus). The actual working distance between the two is within 10-15mm. I think the 85mm might (depending on results once released) be a good choice if your on a bit of a budget, the specs on it look very good. It also will give a touch more working distance over the Sigma 105mm or Tamron 90mm (even though they have a longer FL) because they extend quite a bit at minimum focus distance
I disagree you need tripod to shoot macro. 90% of my shots are between 1:1 or higher magnification and I haven't touched my tripod in years. It really just gets in the way if you're chasing little critters. Using a flash is a much more user friendly solution if you can't keep your shutter speed fast enough. Positioning becomes so critical I also prefer to shoot static subjects hand held.
Here's a few samples of hand held shots with the D200, Sigma 105mm and a SB-400 flash. These are between 2:1 and 3:1 reproduction ratio.
Regarding the OP, I'm partial to the 85 PC-micro. As sharp as any lens you can find, and the tilt function can open up more angles by changing the focal plane.
jonohara wrote:
thanks for the comments.. I will look into all of these lenses suggested. I do have a tripod too to work with Not a good one but it gets the job done..
I'd suggest you get a cheaper lens like the Tamron 90 used and spend the rest on a Manfrotto 055 and a good head. A good tripod makes night and day in handling, setup and convenience for macro use.
rnickl wrote:
The new 85mm is a bit shorter in focal length but it's also a shorter lens (neither extend to focus). The actual working distance between the two is within 10-15mm. I think the 85mm might (depending on results once released) be a good choice if your on a bit of a budget, the specs on it look very good. It also will give a touch more working distance over the Sigma 105mm or Tamron 90mm (even though they have a longer FL) because they extend quite a bit at minimum focus distance
I disagree you need tripod to shoot macro. 90% of my shots are between 1:1 or higher magnification and I haven't touched my tripod in years. It really just gets in the way if you're chasing little critters. Using a flash is a much more user friendly solution if you can't keep your shutter speed fast enough. Positioning becomes so critical I also prefer to shoot static subjects hand held.
Here's a few samples of hand held shots with the D200, Sigma 105mm and a SB-400 flash. These are between 2:1 and 3:1 reproduction ratio. ...Show more →
So, would you recommand the Nikon 85 vr macro or the Sigma 105 or 150 macro?
your photos are beautiful, so one would rahter go for the Sigma
VR does not help in Macro work.
Well theres the tamron 90, nikon 105 or sigma 105, 150sigma. Maybe the nikon 85mm but most other lenses are a bit short and may be tougher photographing bugs.
Tamron's the most value for money. Personally the 105mm VR is the most 'feature rich' in the sense its got SWM, VR, Nano coating. But i find it has some CA wide open so that may be annoying. I find its decent for portraits too and its got good bokeh. If you think you'll use the lens more often outside macro for walkabouts etc, the VR might be useful.
I should get the lense next week. My rep put the order in today. Since he's a rep in sport optics he was able to get me my lense below cost. Too bad I can only buy from him one time a year.
Not a good one but it gets the job done..
