A good honest review and great images, what flash do you use for your macro? I’ve never used flash before, could you suggest an easy to use flash kit for beginners?
Bob Wood
May 4, 2023 8:32 pm
What is the difference between the DX and the FX lens?
Thank you very much Spencer. Amazing review and superb photos!
phocean
June 8, 2022 5:43 pm
Hello, Thanks, very nice article, interesting and awesome shots ! I have a question : I see some photos taken at apertures as small as f/25… I thought diffraction would be a huge issue and that, generally, in full frame DSLR we should not got about f/16. I am sure you know it so could you please share your opinion?
With high-magnification macro photography, the depth of field is *extremely* shallow. To the point that at normal apertures like f/8, you may get half of an ant’s eye in focus, and the rest of the picture will be a blurry mess. If the subject isn’t moving, you can use focus stacking and retain a lot of sharpness. On moving subjects, there often is no choice but to use very narrow apertures like f/22 or f/32. Yes, there is diffraction, but it’s not as bad as people make it seem. You could still easily get huge prints at that point if you use good sharpening technique.
UrbexMark
May 18, 2022 12:40 pm
Can we expect a review of the Z 105 MC lens anytime soon?
It will be one of the next lenses we review, but we’re relocating our lab testing setup at the moment, so I don’t have an ETA for you. Likely this year at least.
Eneid
May 11, 2022 2:39 pm
Thank you, lovely review. I recently picked up a pre-owned Nikon DSLR and a macros lens is on my list of things to buy. Good to know that this is a high quality lens that isn’t very expensive anymore.
Alexander von Grafenstein
May 10, 2022 2:44 pm
After a very long wait, since September 2021, Tamron finally offers an update to the F017 that seems to fix any issues on the FTZ . You have to send in the lens, though.
Alexander von Grafenstein
May 10, 2022 1:31 pm
I want to give a little praise to the Tamron 90mm F017. In my opinion it really is a gem that somehow didn’t get the attention it deserved and sadly was discontinued after only a few years on the market. I think, it shines in many disciplines with no shortcomings whatsoever. I find image quality to be excellent, starting at very good sharpness right into corners at low apertures as stated by Spencer, but also no visible CAs neither longitudinal nor lateral. I also love the bokeh, although i’m not super picky in that regard. Beyond that, AF is absolutely unique for a macro lens. It is really odd, that this is my fastest focussing lens! I don’t have one of the 2,8 zooms, but I can’t imagine that there is much difference. Performance is also rock solid. I fully trust that lens to hit every single time, also at very remote focus points. AF at 1:1 is no problem at all and fully usable. I like to use AF-C with front and back movement not for focussing, but for framing. The image stabilizer is said to be efficient at close distances too, due to also compensating for translatory movement not only rotation. I can’t compare that but it surely has an effect when close up. Working distance is also almost the same as Nikon and Sigma despite the shorter focal length. Finally, there are those small details like flourine coating that put it apart from its contenders. I owned and sold the Tokina (very bad CA) and tried both the Sigma and the Nikon shortly besides the Tamron when looking for a replacement. The decision was very clear. In my opinion the Tamron really stands out and I wouldn’t want to give it away for any of the others. I can only imagine that people deciding to go third party all leaned towards the cheaper Sigma or that the slightly shorter 90mm steered people away. Or its qualities are not apparent from the specs.
It is really a pity that this excellent lens apparently didn’t sell.
As Spencer rightly points out, they’re all good, but the Tamron stands out. And I don’t see the slightly shorter focal length as a negative. Even at 90mm, I sometimes wish it were ever so slightly wider to fit into tight places like under a low-to-the-ground downward facing flower, shooting up into it.
I have the Tamron 90mm and enjoyed it on my D750. However, as noted, it does not perform well with the FTZ on a Z camera (Z8 in my case). Because I only dabble with macro I bought a used Nikon 105mm f-mount as reviewed here. I am getting better results than the Tamron. Again, that is when using with the FTZ, On the d750 it was great.
I’ve owned many macro lenses from Nikon (Nikon 200mm f/4 and the 60mm f/2.8 G, Tokina M100 and M35 and Tamron 90 F017 and the old 180mm f/3.5 and in general image rendition alone, I prefer the Tamron F017 to all of them. What is not discussed in this review is long term reliability. The autofocus motor has stopped working in my F017 after a few years of occasional use and as I look at all the used listings of this lens online, half of them have the same problem and are being sold for parts or as manual focus lenses exclusively. Coincidence ? I think not. I’ve been a photographer for almost 25 years and if I would have one recommendation to give to newbies who ask about brands, I’d say stick with Nikon if you value long term reliability and a company that will stand behind their products. With third party lenses you are taking your chances.
J J
May 10, 2022 6:36 am
Just checked the used prices & the 105 F is cratering since the Z version hit. Well under half price…
From what I can tell prices are near free fall on basically all F mount product, even those that don’t have a native Z equivalent. I recently sold my 70-300 AF-P lens (FF version) and didn’t get all that much for it.
Thomas Herren
May 9, 2022 12:24 am
Although I don’t do a lot of macro anymore, I am keeping the lens for portraits with a Z5 in cases where the (really outstanding) Nikkor Z 85mm f/1.8 S is a bit too short. I like the backgound rendering of the 105mm G, although the AF-S NIKKOR 105 mm 1:1,4E ED (which I don’t own) is in a different league for portraiture.
A good honest review and great images, what flash do you use for your macro?
I’ve never used flash before, could you suggest an easy to use flash kit for beginners?
What is the difference between the DX and the FX lens?
DX for APS-C, FX for full frame
Thank you very much Spencer. Amazing review and superb photos!
Hello,
Thanks, very nice article, interesting and awesome shots !
I have a question : I see some photos taken at apertures as small as f/25… I thought diffraction would be a huge issue and that, generally, in full frame DSLR we should not got about f/16. I am sure you know it so could you please share your opinion?
With high-magnification macro photography, the depth of field is *extremely* shallow. To the point that at normal apertures like f/8, you may get half of an ant’s eye in focus, and the rest of the picture will be a blurry mess. If the subject isn’t moving, you can use focus stacking and retain a lot of sharpness. On moving subjects, there often is no choice but to use very narrow apertures like f/22 or f/32. Yes, there is diffraction, but it’s not as bad as people make it seem. You could still easily get huge prints at that point if you use good sharpening technique.
Can we expect a review of the Z 105 MC lens anytime soon?
After reading the article I’m guessing the answer is no.
It will be one of the next lenses we review, but we’re relocating our lab testing setup at the moment, so I don’t have an ETA for you. Likely this year at least.
Thank you, lovely review. I recently picked up a pre-owned Nikon DSLR and a macros lens is on my list of things to buy. Good to know that this is a high quality lens that isn’t very expensive anymore.
After a very long wait, since September 2021, Tamron finally offers an update to the F017 that seems to fix any issues on the FTZ . You have to send in the lens, though.
I want to give a little praise to the Tamron 90mm F017. In my opinion it really is a gem that somehow didn’t get the attention it deserved and sadly was discontinued after only a few years on the market. I think, it shines in many disciplines with no shortcomings whatsoever.
I find image quality to be excellent, starting at very good sharpness right into corners at low apertures as stated by Spencer, but also no visible CAs neither longitudinal nor lateral. I also love the bokeh, although i’m not super picky in that regard.
Beyond that, AF is absolutely unique for a macro lens. It is really odd, that this is my fastest focussing lens! I don’t have one of the 2,8 zooms, but I can’t imagine that there is much difference. Performance is also rock solid. I fully trust that lens to hit every single time, also at very remote focus points. AF at 1:1 is no problem at all and fully usable. I like to use AF-C with front and back movement not for focussing, but for framing.
The image stabilizer is said to be efficient at close distances too, due to also compensating for translatory movement not only rotation. I can’t compare that but it surely has an effect when close up.
Working distance is also almost the same as Nikon and Sigma despite the shorter focal length. Finally, there are those small details like flourine coating that put it apart from its contenders.
I owned and sold the Tokina (very bad CA) and tried both the Sigma and the Nikon shortly besides the Tamron when looking for a replacement. The decision was very clear. In my opinion the Tamron really stands out and I wouldn’t want to give it away for any of the others.
I can only imagine that people deciding to go third party all leaned towards the cheaper Sigma or that the slightly shorter 90mm steered people away. Or its qualities are not apparent from the specs.
It is really a pity that this excellent lens apparently didn’t sell.
As Spencer rightly points out, they’re all good, but the Tamron stands out. And I don’t see the slightly shorter focal length as a negative. Even at 90mm, I sometimes wish it were ever so slightly wider to fit into tight places like under a low-to-the-ground downward facing flower, shooting up into it.
I have the Tamron 90mm and enjoyed it on my D750. However, as noted, it does not perform well with the FTZ on a Z camera (Z8 in my case). Because I only dabble with macro I bought a used Nikon 105mm f-mount as reviewed here. I am getting better results than the Tamron. Again, that is when using with the FTZ, On the d750 it was great.
I’ve owned many macro lenses from Nikon (Nikon 200mm f/4 and the 60mm f/2.8 G, Tokina M100 and M35 and Tamron 90 F017 and the old 180mm f/3.5 and in general image rendition alone, I prefer the Tamron F017 to all of them. What is not discussed in this review is long term reliability. The autofocus motor has stopped working in my F017 after a few years of occasional use and as I look at all the used listings of this lens online, half of them have the same problem and are being sold for parts or as manual focus lenses exclusively. Coincidence ? I think not. I’ve been a photographer for almost 25 years and if I would have one recommendation to give to newbies who ask about brands, I’d say stick with Nikon if you value long term reliability and a company that will stand behind their products. With third party lenses you are taking your chances.
Just checked the used prices & the 105 F is cratering since the Z version hit. Well under half price…
From what I can tell prices are near free fall on basically all F mount product, even those that don’t have a native Z equivalent. I recently sold my 70-300 AF-P lens (FF version) and didn’t get all that much for it.
Although I don’t do a lot of macro anymore, I am keeping the lens for portraits with a Z5 in cases where the (really outstanding) Nikkor Z 85mm f/1.8 S is a bit too short. I like the backgound rendering of the 105mm G, although the AF-S NIKKOR 105 mm 1:1,4E ED (which I don’t own) is in a different league for portraiture.