I know it is fairly new, but was wondering if anyone has had any underwater experience with it yet?

10 minutes ago, JohnD said:

I know it is fairly new, but was wondering if anyone has had any underwater experience with it yet?

Phil Rudin has reviewed it already, the review is in the latest Underwater photography magazine:

 

https://www.uwpmag.com/

 

It's a free sign up to download it.

13 minutes ago, Chris Ross said:

Phil Rudin has reviewed it already, the review is in the latest Underwater photography magazine:

 

https://www.uwpmag.com/

 

It's a free sign up to download it.

Geez, I already get that but apparently missed the article.  My bad.

A great and reasonably priced lens. I also reviewed the Sigma 105 in the prior issue. They have become my go to pair. Have not used THE Sony 90 since I got the TAMRON. 

The tamron is fantastic. I’ve been using it quite a lot for an upcoming review. I think it is faster and a bit better IQ than Sonys 90 but it is a much newer lens so that makes sense. Especially for the price, it provides phenomenal value 

Thanks, guys.  I am one of the half dozen people using Nikon and not Sony, so the direct comparison to the Sony 90 does not mean much to me, but the Tamron 90 looks interesting and somewhat overlaps but also complements a 105.  

After reading the reviews, I think I will get one.

I'm unclear what advantages Tamron would have over the F or Z mount Nikon 105 lenses. These are both excellent lenses - fast, sharp, reliable. The F-mount is also available on used markets at excellent prices. (ex. KEH has the F mount like new for under $400) I've yet to see any comparison between the two brands.

 

What are you looking for in the Tamron 90?

Edited March 1Mar 1 by Dave_Hicks

Oh if it’s between the tamron 90 and z mount 105, the z mount 105 may well be the best macro lens on the market 

1 hour ago, Dave_Hicks said:

I'm unclear what advantages Tamron would have over the F or Z mount Nikon 105 lenses. These are both excellent lenses - fast, sharp, reliable. The F-mount is also available on used markets at excellent prices. (ex. KEH has the F mount like new for under $400) I've yet to see any comparison between the two brands.

 

What are you looking for in the Tamron 90?

Well, I have a 105 that I can use with the FTZ.  Everything I have read suggests it works well on mirrorless, but not quite up to the speed and reduced "hunting" of the z version, in addition to being longer and heavier than the newer lens.  That has had me wondering if it is worth an upgrade.   Probably not, but that has not stopped me in the past from buying new camera gear...

 

The 90 would offer an option that is perhaps a bit faster focusing than even the z 105 and offer a slightly different focal length.  My most-used underwater macro on DX has been the 60mm.  90mm on FX is the same focal length, and for most of my macro work I have not wished for a longer lens, so I think the 90 would be a comfortable choice.

 

I still need to spend some time looking at distance to subject on the Tamron and make sure I am happy with that.

 

Edit:  Just saw Matthew's post above.  I may want to think this through a bit more.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 1Mar 1 by JohnD

27 minutes ago, JohnD said:

Well, I have a 105 that I can use with the FTZ.  Everything I have read suggests it works well on mirrorless, but not quite up to the speed and reduced "hunting" of the z version, in addition to being longer and heavier than the newer lens.  That has had me wondering if it is worth an upgrade.   Probably not, but that has not stopped me in the past from buying new camera gear...

 

The 90 would offer an option that is perhaps a bit faster focusing than even the z 105 and offer a slightly different focal length.  My most-used underwater macro on DX has been the 60mm.  90mm on FX is the same focal length, and for most of my macro work I have not wished for a longer lens, so I think the 90 would be a comfortable choice.

 

I still need to spend some time looking at distance to subject on the Tamron and make sure I am happy with that.

 

Edit:  Just saw Matthew's post above.  I may want to think this through a bit more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I use the Nikon F 105mm on the FTZ with a Z8 camera. Previously I used it on my D300, D800, and D850. (I eventually broke my original lens and replaced it with a Like New used copy) It remains razor sharp and super-fast with the Z8. I don't think anyone would complain about sharpness or slow focus with this lens. 

 

That said, if I didn't already own the F-mount I would buy the Nikon 105Z lens if your primary camera is a Z-system body. I've not used it, but the evaluations all claim that it is a bit faster and sharper than the F mount. However, the improvements are marginal and not easy to demonstrate. It is going to be a bit lighter and smaller than the F-mount+FTZ however. If you already have the F-mount, it's going to be an expensive upgrade at ~$1000 for the lens and possibly a new Nauticam port or spacer. A very optional upgrade with a low cost/benefit ratio. 

 

Long ago I used to shoot the 60mm on DX cameras like the D300. It was a natural fit on that format. When I moved to FF the 105 drops into that comfortable slot the 60mm used to hold. I rarely use my 60mm any more as a result, it is just not as good. The difference from 90mm to 105mm is not significant and I don't think it's in the favor of a 90mm format. 

 

I would be interesting to see a head-to-head with Tamron 90 and Nikon Z 105mm. If nothing else, the F16 limit of the Tamron would make it an uphill climb against your Nikon options. The Sony 90mm is not universally loved, so the Tamron probably looks like an attractive option for Sony Shooters. 

Edited March 1Mar 1 by Dave_Hicks

6 minutes ago, Dave_Hicks said:

 

I use the Nikon F 105mm on the FTZ with a Z8 camera. Previously I used it on my D300, D800, and D850. (I eventually broke my original lens and replaced it with a Like New used copy) It remains razor sharp and super-fast with the Z8. I don't think anyone would complain about sharpness or slow focus with this lens. 

 

That said, if I didn't already own the F-mount I would buy the Nikon 105Z lens if your primary camera is a Z-system body. I've not used it, but the evaluations all claim that it is a bit faster and sharper than the F mount. However, the improvements are marginal and not easy to demonstrate. It is going to be a bit lighter and smaller than the F-mount+FTZ however. 

 

Long ago I used to shoot the 60mm on DX cameras like the D300. It was a natural fit on that format. When I moved to FF the 105 drops into that comfortable slot the 60mm used to hold. I rarely use my 60mm any more as a result, it is just not as good. The difference from 90mm to 105mm is not significant and I don't think it's in the favor of a 90mm format. 

 

I would be interesting to see a head-to-head with Tamron 90 and Nikon Z 105mm. If nothing else, the F16 limit of the Tamron would make it an uphill climb against your Nikon options. The Sony 90mm is not universally loved, so the Tamron probably looks like an attractive option for Sony Shooters. 

Good points.   It has always been great to have a place to have these discussions and I often end up re-thinking and researching new ideas and points of view. 

 

Although it was one of my two primary underwater lenses before, I am not seeing much likelihood of using the 60 on FX.

6 minutes ago, JohnD said:

Good points.   It has always been great to have a place to have these discussions and I often end up re-thinking and researching new ideas and points of view. 

 

Although it was one of my two primary underwater lenses before, I am not seeing much likelihood of using the 60 on FX.

 

I really only used my 60mm with a Kraken KRL-09 wet-wide adapter lens. It flips down on a 60mm to make a wide angle option. It's a good way to combine Macro and Wide on a single dive. However, when I got my Z8 I also invested in the WWL-C with the 24-50z lens. This provide much of the same range and capabilities the 60+Kraken can do, so it's a bit of bench warmer these days. The WWL-C win in nearly every point of comparison between the two. Sharper, smaller, more flexible, etc.

 

Edited March 1Mar 1 by Dave_Hicks

6 hours ago, JohnD said:

Good points.   It has always been great to have a place to have these discussions and I often end up re-thinking and researching new ideas and points of view. 

 

Although it was one of my two primary underwater lenses before, I am not seeing much likelihood of using the 60 on FX.

Some data on the two lenses:

 

Tamron

length:  126.5 mm

MFD/working distance:  230/119

Port:   ???  13.5mm shorter than the macro port 80 or 30mm longer than the macro port 60

Nikon Z

Length:  140

MFD/working distance:  290/134

Port: Macro port 80

Nikon F 60mm macro with FTZ

Length:  89mm  + (44-16) = 117

port:  macro port 60

 

The lens is 13.5mm shorter than the Z lens, so should need a Macro port 66?   You could use the macro port 80 but the lens wouldn't be as close to the port glass as you might like for using with diopters.  If the lengths reported are correct adding a 10mm extension to the macro port 60 should work for the Tamron.  

 

If you already have the Macro port 60 you could buy a 10mm extension ring for the Tamron instead of a macro port 80 for the Nikon Z or you could continue to use your existing port for the Nikon F 105mm.

 

As for the 60mm macro, it seems the preferred Nikon choice for blackwater if you see that in your future. 

12 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

Some data on the two lenses:

 

Tamron

length:  126.5 mm

MFD/working distance:  230/119

Port:   ???  13.5mm shorter than the macro port 80 or 30mm longer than the macro port 60

Nikon Z

Length:  140

MFD/working distance:  290/134

Port: Macro port 80

Nikon F 60mm macro with FTZ

Length:  89mm  + (44-16) = 117

port:  macro port 60

 

The lens is 13.5mm shorter than the Z lens, so should need a Macro port 66?   You could use the macro port 80 but the lens wouldn't be as close to the port glass as you might like for using with diopters.  If the lengths reported are correct adding a 10mm extension to the macro port 60 should work for the Tamron.  

 

If you already have the Macro port 60 you could buy a 10mm extension ring for the Tamron instead of a macro port 80 for the Nikon Z or you could continue to use your existing port for the Nikon F 105mm.

 

As for the 60mm macro, it seems the preferred Nikon choice for blackwater if you see that in your future. 

I have used the 60 port for the 60 and added a 20mm extension for the 105.  According to the port chart that would also work for the Z, but not, I think for the older 105 with the FTZ.  Not sure if it would work for the Tamron or cause focusing and diopter issues.

 

i have only done a blackwater dive once but would like to again.

1 hour ago, JohnD said:

I have used the 60 port for the 60 and added a 20mm extension for the 105.  According to the port chart that would also work for the Z, but not, I think for the older 105 with the FTZ.  Not sure if it would work for the Tamron or cause focusing and diopter issues.

 

i have only done a blackwater dive once but would like to again.

I've used the 105mm F mount with a port 60 +20 as well. It should not be any different with the FTZ adapter as the Nauticam Z housings are designed to exactly position an F mount lens + FTZ in the same position as F mount bodies did. 

 

8 hours ago, JohnD said:

I have used the 60 port for the 60 and added a 20mm extension for the 105.  According to the port chart that would also work for the Z, but not, I think for the older 105 with the FTZ.  Not sure if it would work for the Tamron or cause focusing and diopter issues.

 

i have only done a blackwater dive once but would like to again.

In F mount the port chart says that the 105mm F lens uses macro port 87 or 60mm plus 30mm.  It uses this same combination with the FTZ adapter on the Z series cameras.

 

In Z mount the 105mm lens uses the macro port 80 or the 60mm plus 20mm.

 

Not sure what the concern about the Tamron would be, it looks like it should use the 10mm extension with the 60mm port You would need to confirm this of course.  The specs for the 60mm say it is 89mm long and with the FTZ adapter which is 46.5-16 long = 30.5mm long.  So total of length of 119.5.  The Tamron is 126.5 long which is 7mm longer than the 60mm on the FTZ so a 10mm extension should be about right to use with the macro port 60 for the Tamron if you go that way.

 

All this assumes the published lengths are correct, hence the need to check

 

 

35 minutes ago, Chris Ross said:

In F mount the port chart says that the 105mm F lens uses macro port 87 or 60mm plus 30mm.  It uses this same combination with the FTZ adapter on the Z series cameras.

 

In Z mount the 105mm lens uses the macro port 80 or the 60mm plus 20mm.

 

Not sure what the concern about the Tamron would be, it looks like it should use the 10mm extension with the 60mm port You would need to confirm this of course.  The specs for the 60mm say it is 89mm long and with the FTZ adapter which is 46.5-16 long = 30.5mm long.  So total of length of 119.5.  The Tamron is 126.5 long which is 7mm longer than the 60mm on the FTZ so a 10mm extension should be about right to use with the macro port 60 for the Tamron if you go that way.

 

All this assumes the published lengths are correct, hence the need to check

 

 

You are right about the 30mm for the 105 F mount.  I had a senior moment or something.   As to the Tamron,  I only meant that I had not spent enough time looking at port length to be sure what the best choice wold be.  I am actually now thinking I should stay with the F mount 105 or get the Z mount 105 and pass on the Tamron.

 

 

Not sure of the relevance of the comparison between a 27.2 degree AOV lens and a 23.1 degree AOV lens other than they can both be used on the same Nikon Z cameras. It makes more sense to me to compare Nikon Z 105 to Nikon AF-S 105 VR.

 

The upsides to the Tamron 90mm over the Sony 90mm are the more modern focusing motors that make the AF quicker and more accurate, 12-blade diaphragm for better sunstars and higher quality Bokeh at wider aperture settings, retail cost of $699.00US v. over $1000.00US for Nikon 105 Z and Sony 90 macros. 

 

Perhaps the biggest upside to the Tamron 90 that has not been pointed out in this post, underwater video reviews and more is the simple fact the the focus limiter has a big advantage over all the other Marco lenses I have reviewed. Every 1:1 macro I know Z105, FE 90, Sigma 105 and many more all have a focus limiter of 1:1 to 0.5mm or 19.69 inches. This does not cover the normal range that most macro photographers shoot at and therefore requires you to shoot from 1:1 to infinity for that extra few inches of distanceneededo for many subjects. The Nauticam MFO-1 helps to mitigate this issue by giving you focus for a little less than 1:1 out to between 1082-1002mm or 42.6 to 39.45 inches. This is great but most of use will never shoot a 90 to 105 macro lens anywhere near 39 inches from the subject. The Tamron has a focus limiting distance from 1:1 to 70cm or 27.56 inches, my guess is that about 95% of what we shoot without a closeup lens added will be within this range. The advantage for both the MFO-1 and the Tamron is far less hunting than at 1:1 to infinity. While the Tamron does not have the full advantage of the MFO-1 it has a far better shooting range that other macros starting from 1:1.  

On 3/5/2025 at 2:37 PM, Phil Rudin said:

Not sure of the relevance of the comparison between a 27.2 degree AOV lens and a 23.1 degree AOV lens other than they can both be used on the same Nikon Z cameras. It makes more sense to me to compare Nikon Z 105 to Nikon AF-S 105 VR.

 

The upsides to the Tamron 90mm over the Sony 90mm are the more modern focusing motors that make the AF quicker and more accurate, 12-blade diaphragm for better sunstars and higher quality Bokeh at wider aperture settings, retail cost of $699.00US v. over $1000.00US for Nikon 105 Z and Sony 90 macros. 

 

Perhaps the biggest upside to the Tamron 90 that has not been pointed out in this post, underwater video reviews and more is the simple fact the the focus limiter has a big advantage over all the other Marco lenses I have reviewed. Every 1:1 macro I know Z105, FE 90, Sigma 105 and many more all have a focus limiter of 1:1 to 0.5mm or 19.69 inches. This does not cover the normal range that most macro photographers shoot at and therefore requires you to shoot from 1:1 to infinity for that extra few inches of distanceneededo for many subjects. The Nauticam MFO-1 helps to mitigate this issue by giving you focus for a little less than 1:1 out to between 1082-1002mm or 42.6 to 39.45 inches. This is great but most of use will never shoot a 90 to 105 macro lens anywhere near 39 inches from the subject. The Tamron has a focus limiting distance from 1:1 to 70cm or 27.56 inches, my guess is that about 95% of what we shoot without a closeup lens added will be within this range. The advantage for both the MFO-1 and the Tamron is far less hunting than at 1:1 to infinity. While the Tamron does not have the full advantage of the MFO-1 it has a far better shooting range that other macros starting from 1:1.  

Interesting points.   I am still unclear on the value (to me) of the MFO-1.  It seems great, but I have no idea if it reduces hunting/increases focus speed at normal at normal ranges.   

1 hour ago, JohnD said:

Interesting points.   I am still unclear on the value (to me) of the MFO-1.  It seems great, but I have no idea if it reduces hunting/increases focus speed at normal at normal ranges.   

I am going to try the MFO-1 with my Z8 and 105mm F-mount lens. I don't have an issue with this lens hunting in my current setup generally. I am more focused on any possible image quality improvement and expanding the working range of the lens. I ordered one this week, perhaps I'll have it by next week and can give a review shortly.

1 hour ago, Dave_Hicks said:

I am going to try the MFO-1 with my Z8 and 105mm F-mount lens. I don't have an issue with this lens hunting in my current setup generally. I am more focused on any possible image quality improvement and expanding the working range of the lens. I ordered one this week, perhaps I'll have it by next week and can give a review shortly.

Looking forward to your report...

Going fresh into a Sony system shooting macro, Tamron over Sony 90mm would be the move?

 

Also port-wise, Tamron seems in technical data 2mm shorter than Sony, Im guessing same port (Nauti) will work just fine?

 

Alex and I discuss it here. And I have a DPG review on it coming out next week