Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Head north 'til you smack a polar bear, then crank it back 50 miles.
    Posts
    440

    Nikon 105 AF or Tokina 100?

    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
    Critique most definitely desired...

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Monterey Bay
    Posts
    6,011
    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.
    D7000, D70, CP990, CP900, FE.
    50mm f/1.8, Sigma 18-125, Sigma 24-70 f/2.8, Nikon 18-105 VR, Nikon 55-200 VR, Nikon 43-86 f/3.5 AiS, Vivitar 28-90 F/2.8-3.5 Macro, Vivitar 75-205 F/3.8-4.8, SB800.
    Ha! See, I can change...


    http://d70fan.smugmug.com/

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    6,889
    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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Head north 'til you smack a polar bear, then crank it back 50 miles.
    Posts
    440
    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).
    Critique most definitely desired...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Terra Australis Incognita
    Posts
    3,863
    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.
    D800, D300, D90, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200VR f2.8, 300 F4, 105 micro, 16-85VR, 50mm 1.8, Tammy 90 macro, 70-300VR, SB900, 2xSB600, MB-D10, 055XPROB 322RC2. New computers to run photoshop faster. C&C always appreciated. PhotoGallery
    Pressing the shutter is the start of the process - Joe McNally ... Buying the body is the start of the process - Dread Pirate

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Head north 'til you smack a polar bear, then crank it back 50 miles.
    Posts
    440
    Thanks DPR. Since you own the Tammy and Nikkor, which lens do you prefer, image quality wise?
    Critique most definitely desired...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Terra Australis Incognita
    Posts
    3,863
    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.
    Attached Images Attached Images     
    Last edited by Dread Pirate Roberts; 11-20-2012 at 02:59 AM.
    D800, D300, D90, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200VR f2.8, 300 F4, 105 micro, 16-85VR, 50mm 1.8, Tammy 90 macro, 70-300VR, SB900, 2xSB600, MB-D10, 055XPROB 322RC2. New computers to run photoshop faster. C&C always appreciated. PhotoGallery
    Pressing the shutter is the start of the process - Joe McNally ... Buying the body is the start of the process - Dread Pirate

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Head north 'til you smack a polar bear, then crank it back 50 miles.
    Posts
    440
    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
    Critique most definitely desired...

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Monterey Bay
    Posts
    6,011
    It gets worse, better.
    D7000, D70, CP990, CP900, FE.
    50mm f/1.8, Sigma 18-125, Sigma 24-70 f/2.8, Nikon 18-105 VR, Nikon 55-200 VR, Nikon 43-86 f/3.5 AiS, Vivitar 28-90 F/2.8-3.5 Macro, Vivitar 75-205 F/3.8-4.8, SB800.
    Ha! See, I can change...


    http://d70fan.smugmug.com/

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •