Nikon 105 AF or Tokina 100?

[DiamondSCattleCo]

I've been seriously wanting a longer macro lens to replace my Sigma 50 and have narrowed it down to either a used Nikon 105 AF (NOT the AF-S version) or a new Tokina 100mm Pro D. I think I've read almost every review on the web, and all the forum topics I could find, but I don't think I've seen one where the author actually owned and used both.

So how about it, anyone on here ever owned or used both? Which really is the better lens of the two? I'm not overly concerned about autofocus speed (although painfully slow won't be acceptable), but rather with sharpness and image quality.

Rod

[D70FAN]

Sorry, I have no experience with either, but in looking at the Photozone test, and the price, I'm seriously considering the Nikkor 105 f/2myself. I'm not sure that you can find a better lens in this range (used ~$405 @ e-bay) for the price.

[K1W1]

The Tamron 90mm f2.8 is the best value macro there is and there is now a new version with internal focussing and a built in focus motor.
Unless you are a dedicated macro shooter and are going to get a huge amount of use from the lens (most people don't) the Nikon 105 is way, way overpriced imo. Compare the Photozone reviews of the Nokon and Tamron and see how your bank balance is looking.

[DiamondSCattleCo]

I keep revisiting the Tamron 90mm, mainly due to the Photozone reviews showing it to be sharper than either the Nikon 105 AF and the Tokina 100, however I keep hearing about poor focus speed (I probably won't be buying the BIM version, simply to keep the price under $500 Canuck) which scares me off, since the lens will also be used as a normal prime in action shots (versus being a dedicated macro lens).

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

Any macro lens is going to be slow to focus as it has a long way to travel. Has the person writing "it's slow to focus" ever used any other macro lens?

I can't pick a huge difference between my tammy 90 and Nikkor 105, both are bloody slow compared to non macro lenses. I find the Tammy too slow to focus to use for close macro work, the Nikkor may be twice as fast but it also is too slow to focus for close in macro distances. So in the end does it matter that it's slower?

I use MF instead.

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Thanks DPR. Since you own the Tammy and Nikkor, which lens do you prefer, image quality wise?

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

I'm not convinced there's any difference in IQ. I hate the extending front element on the Tammy, it has a consumer build whereas the Nikkor is a reasonably pro build.

If I was tight for cash and needed IQ I would buy the Tammy hands down, if I wasn't tight for cash I'd buy the Nikkor. If I'd once been tight for cash and no longer am I'd be stuck with both

Here's two shots, the defects are my shooting not the lenses. The BIF and spider is the Tammy and the butterfly and flower is the Nikkor.

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Thanks DPR, appreciate the insight. Used 105s sell for about the same as new Tamrons, so if I find a nice 105 I'll be snagging it. Unless I find a nice used Tamron for less. Unless...

I hate this hobby...

Rod

[D70FAN]

It gets worse, better.