Nikkor 60mm or Tamron 90mm for Macro

ESiggins

So as the title says, I'm weighing the 60mm F2.8 micro-nikkor and the Tamron 90mm F2.8 macro. Basically, I want something that I can use as a serrious macro lens but that will also serve for decent portrait/mid-tele work. Both get generally good reviews.

Here's what I'm really wondering: Lots of people say the 60mm forces you to get too close to live insects at 1:1, but I'm using a DSLR which I guess turns this into about a 95mm lens. Will I still have to get ultra close to get 1:1, or does the 1.6x magnification give me a little extra wiggle room? This makes a big difference to me because i feel like the 90mm Tamron (140mm or so on my D70) would have me backed up against walls any time I want to shoot a portrait indoors.

Any ideas much appreciated.

Fred.

P.S. I'm not really concerened with AF speed as I'd use a fast-focusing zoom for news/action or a big tele for sports. Macro is done manaully, and I do most of my portraits manually, too so it's not a big deal.

greenpea

ESiggins wrote:

So as the title says, I'm weighing the 60mm F2.8 micro-nikkor and the Tamron 90mm F2.8 macro. Basically, I want something that I can use as a serrious macro lens but that will also serve for decent portrait/mid-tele work. Both get generally good reviews.

Here's what I'm really wondering: Lots of people say the 60mm forces you to get too close to live insects at 1:1, but I'm using a DSLR which I guess turns this into about a 95mm lens. Will I still have to get ultra close to get 1:1, or does the 1.6x magnification give me a little extra wiggle room? This makes a big difference to me because i feel like the 90mm Tamron (140mm or so on my D70) would have me backed up against walls any time I want to shoot a portrait indoors.

Any ideas much appreciated.

Fred.

P.S. I'm not really concerened with AF speed as I'd use a fast-focusing zoom for news/action or a big tele for sports. Macro is done manaully, and I do most of my portraits manually, too so it's not a big deal.

Not to back you further up against the wall, but have you considered the Nikkor 105 Macro? It gives you a lot more working distance when your trying to do macro work, and it does take great portraits (assuming you can back far enough up ).

The Nikkor 60mm Macro is a great portrait lens, but for macro work your DOF starts to gets razor thin. Also when you get up to 6 inches or less from your subject your own body heat can cause micro climates creating a slight wind where otherwise there is none.

I should mention that the Nikkor 105 Macro might not be around for long, I think might be discontinuing it in favor of a new VR version of that lens.

Tee Why

If you are doing mainly macro work then I'd go with the Tamron for it's greater reach. If you are going to do a lot of portrait work and 60mm is what you need, then you may have to get the 60mm. Another option is to get the Tamron and a Nikon 50mm f1.8, which is relatively cheap, for portrait work only.

LuckyBob

Tee Why wrote:

If you are doing mainly macro work then I'd go with the Tamron for it's greater reach. If you are going to do a lot of portrait work and 60mm is what you need, then you may have to get the 60mm. Another option is to get the Tamron and a Nikon 50mm f1.8, which is relatively cheap, for portrait work only.

I'd have to agree with this approach. I've got the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro on a crop sensor and it's just a bit too long for portraits, but the reach for macro is absolutely great. The longer macro lens lets me throw a fairly large amount of extension tubes on the lens and still maintain a bit of working distance, which is a big help also.

Canon's Fantastic Plastic 50mm f/1.8 compliments it nicely for a cheap portrait lens; I'm consistantly suprised when I pull it out and stop it down a bit how well it works for portraits. I tried to use the 100mm not too long after buying it for portraits (figguring it would be much better than the cheap 50mm I've had for a long time), but I wound up putting it back in the bag for the majority of the shoot in favor of the 50mm.

ESiggins

Thanks for the advice, y'all. As far as the nikkor 105 goes, It's $500 more than either of the lenses I mentioned and doesn't get anywhere near as good reviews, at least from what I've seen. Apparently (just going on the reviews I've read), the Canon 105 macro is spectacular, but the nikkor just doesn't stack up against the Tamron in value for money. If I spend a grand on a lens any time soon it'll be for the 17-55 F2.8, the 12-24, or the 80-200 F2.8 - lenses I'll get a lot more use from, I reckon.

ANYWAY, from what you've said, I gather that throwing the 60mm on a crop sensor still won't really improve my reach for macro. As I'm mostly interested in shooting live insects, I reckon I'll go with the Tamron and grab that 50mm 1.8, too (I know it's a fantastic lens - have an old one on my manual FM-10). Thanks!

Fred.